HD 

852& 

$B    31 


The  Workers 
and  Peasants 
::  of  Russia  :: 

How  They  Live 


By  Augustine  Souchy 


PRICE  30  CENTS 


Translated  and  Published  by 

INDUSTRIAL  WORKERS  OF  THE  WORLD 

tOOl  W.  MADISON  ST.  CHICAGO.  ILL..  U.  S.  A. 


The  Workers  and 
Peasants  of  °£  °£ 
Russia  and  Ukraine 

How  Do  They 


By  Augustine  Souchy 

it 


:RNATIONAL  RELATIONS 

jity  of  California 


Translated  and  Published  by 

Educational  Bureau  of  the  Industrial  Workers  of  the  World 
1001  W.  Madison  St.  Chicago,  111.,  U.  S.  A. 


CONTENTS 

Page 

Introduction     3 

Author's    Preface    11 

•Chart    of    Socialist    and    Anarchist    movements 

J     an  Russia  and  Ukraine  16 

'THE,  SOCIALIST  MOVEMENT  IN  RUSSIA....  17 

•  The*.  Marxists     (Social    Democrats) 17 

e\"«The^Narodniks    (National    or    People's    Soc.)  19 

1      Social    Revolutionaries    of    the    Right 19 

Social     Revolutionaries     of     the     Left 19 

The    Maximalists    22 

The     Anarchists 24 

The    Syndicalists    25 

The    Nabat    Anarchists    29 

THE    LAND    32 

The    economic   position   of   the    Peasants 34 

The    political    position    of    the    Peasants 42 

THE    CITY    AND    INDUSTRY 47 

The   Development   of   the    Trade    Unions 47 

The    organization    of    the    Trade   Unions 56 

The    opposition   in    the    Trade    Unions 62 

Rationalization    or    Socialization? 65 

Trust    Building    or    Trustification 68 

The   Home    Workers   and   their   Co-Operative 

Societies    or   Artels    72 

Consumption      74 

The  Life  of  the  Workers  in  the   Cities 82 

Workers'     Insurance    86 

National   Finance    88 

The  Soviets  or  Councils   92 

The  Red  Army 97 

Education     103 

THE  REVOLUTION  IN  UKRAINE ..  107 

Machno       Ill 

The    Socialist    Movement    in    Ukraine 129 

Communism   and  the   Peasantry  133 

The   Economic    Situation   in    Ukraine    ..          ..137 


Introduction 


RUSSIA  of  the  days  of  1917,  the  inspiration  of  the  world's  pro- 
letariat: What  is  transpiring  behind  its  endless  boundaries? 
What  forces  are  shaping  themselves  on  its  millions  of  square 
miles?  Those  180  millions  of  people;  peasants  and  workers, 
what  of  them?  How  have  they  fared  since  the  November  days 
of  1917?  Are  the  programs  and  slogans  of  those  thrilling 
November  days  being  carried  out  or  is  it  true  that,the.initiative 
and  revolutionary  ardor  of  the  workers  in  RiissteJ  nave  bqen 
stifled  by  the  iron-rule  of  a  party  dictatorship?.  How  do  the 
workers  and  peasants,  the  great  lower  layer.-, oj:  the-  -Eu«si^r. 
masses,  look  upon  their  present  government?  Is  it  true  that 
the  Russian  Soviet  Government  is  a  party  government  and  that 
the  workers  have  no  voice  in  choosing  or  electing  their  dele- 
gates to  the  Soviets? 

Such  questions  as  the  above,  were  they  asked  a  year  or  two 
ago  by  any  radical,  would  have  been  howled  down  as  heresy. 
But  at  the  present  day  and  on  the  eve  of  Russian  recognition 
by  the  capitalist  powers,  the  questions  above  suddenly  assume 
great  importance  and  demand  an  answer  one  way  or  another. 
And  they  are  being  answered  as  all  such  questions  are,  in 
various  ways,  depending  on  what  influence  prompts  the  reply. 
Formerly  the  capitalist  press  carried  its  daily  quota  of  polished 
news  depicting  conditions  in  Russia.  But  generally  these  tales 
were  concerned  only  with  the  misfortune  of  the  bourgeois 
class,  and  lately  there  is  noted  from  that  source  a  sudden  still- 
ness about  Russian  atrocities  and  in  its  place  appear  conciliatory 
articles  that  portend — what? 

During  the  time  that  has  elapsed  since  1917  a  few  people 
have  come  from  Russia  carrying  information  with  them  which 
has,  however,  only  been  of  a  general  nature  and  political  in 
character.  Such  information  because  of  its  vague  nature 
served  to  create  a  false  impression  about  Russian  conditions, 
until  at  present  a  sharp  controversy  is  manifest  between  the 
various  elements  of  the  radical  movement.  In  the  light  of  the 
present  day  knowledge  concerning  Russia,  even  if  it  is  slight, 
it  is  beyond  doubt  that  much  of  the  information  previously  cir- 
culated in  America  about  Russia  is  misleading  and  some  of  it 
basely  false.  Who  needs  to  be  reminded  of  the  many  tales 
circulated  about  Russia,  in  which  the  conditions  of  the  workers 
there  have  been  O.  K.d  and  in  which  they  have  been  reported 
as  masters  of  their  destinies?  Generally  the  whole  text  of  the 


news  that  have  been  circulated  seemed  to  concern  itself  with 
describing  the  impossible  qualities  of  certain  Russian  leaders. 
What  a  strange  coincidence  it  is  that  the  real  extent  of  the 
power  wielded  by  the  Central  Committee  of  the  Communist 
Party  of  Russia  is  never  referred  to  and  yet  such  a  power  could 
not  have  escaped  the  notice  of  a  sincere  investigator. 

It  is  quite  likely  that  the  description  of  Russia  in  this  book 
will  be  greeted  in  various  ways.  By  some  as  a  source  of  com- 
parative knowledge;  by  others  in  a  spirit  of  rage.  Vilification 
and  praise  will  follow  in  its  wake. 

The  Communists  of  America  are  now  busy  constructing  a 
great  bogy  with  which  they  can  silence  and  scare  away  the 
critics  of  their  program.  They  call  this  bogy  "anarchist/* 
"counter-revolutionary,"  etc.  These  tactics  are  peculiar  to 
parties  of  a  political  nature,  but  they  are  mere  puffs  of  wind 
.wjhich  "stureth  Jiot  even  the  leaves." 

:  '...*  It  js/oiiiy:  an"  act  of  justice  to  the  reader  if  we  qualify  the 
.investigations  -pf'.the    author  —  Augustin    Souchy  —  by    telling 
' 


Souchy  is  truly  an  "internationalist".  Properly  he  is  a 
member  of  the  German  syndicalist  movement,  but  his  activities 
in  the  European  labor  movement  have  taken  him  to  most  of 
the  countries  of  Europe,  and  whenever  there  is  an  important 
meeting  or  a  conference  of  the  progressive  forces  of  European 
labor  one  can  nearly  always  look  for  Souchy's  name  on  the 
list  of  delegates.  The  authorities  of  all  countries  keep  their 
eyes  on  him  and  he  has  been  deported  from  several  countries, 
notably  from  Scandinavia.  He  was  a  delegate  to  the  Second 
Congress  of  the  Communist  International  at  Moscow  in  1920 
and  also  participated  in  the  conference  that  organized  the  Provi- 
sional Council  of  Trade  and  Industrial  Unions,  the  forerunner 
of  the  present  R.  L.  U.  I.  In  these  conferences  he  opposed,  on 
philosophical  grounds,  the  political  theories  that  dominated 
these  conferences.  The  investigation  of  conditions  in  Russia 
as  set  down  in  this  book  was  made  in  the  same  period  as  his 
attendance  to  the  above  mentioned  bodies.  (1920). 

In  this  book  will  be  found  a  chapter  dealing  with  Machno 
who  has  been  variously  represented  in  this  country  as  a  bandit, 
murderer,  anarchist  and  a  friend  of  the  upper  classes  of  the 
Ukraine  peasants.  It  is.  certain  that  around  this  particular 
person  there  will  always  be  a  fierce  dispute  as  to  his  real 
motive.  His  importance  as  a  figure  in  the  Russian  revolution- 
ary period  will  always  base  itself  on  the  fact  that  he  had  a 
large  following  among  the  peasants  of  the  Ukraine.  Historic- 
ally his  intentions  and  what  he  sought  to  accomplish  will  al- 
ways be  an  open  question.  In  short  he  will  always  have  friends 
and  enemies.  The  author  of  the  book  —  Souchy  —  pictures  him 
in  a  favorable  light.  He  sees  him  as  a  friend  af  the  lower 
classes  of  peasants  as  against  the  higher  element  of  that  class, 
even  to  the  extent  of  carrying  on  open  warfare  against  the 


Soviet  Government.  Perhaps  he  is  justified  by  his  observa- 
tions in  this  stand.  Be  that  as  it  may,  his  opinion  is  his 
own,  but  his  record  of  this  historical  figure  is  as  much  entitled 
to  consideration  as  those  who  tell  a  different  story. 

The  writer  of  this  introduction  was  a  delegate  from  the  I.  W. 
W.  to  the  first  Congress  of  the  Red  Labor  Union  International 
at  Moscow  and  personally  witnessed  a  stormy  debate  at  the 
closing  session  over  Machno  which  developed  from  the  following" 
circumstances : 

During  the  first  days  of  the  sessions  a  movement  was 
launched  by  the  syndicalist  delegates  of  France  and  Spain  to 
secure  the  release  of  some  anarchists  who  were  then  in  Russian 
prisons.  As  a  result  of  a  petition  which  was  signed  by  many 
of  the  delegates,  an  interview  was  arranged  between  some 
of  the  leading  figures  of  the  Russian  Soviet  government  (Lenin 
was  present)  and  a  committee  of  delegates  who  had  signed  the 
petition.  At  this  meeting  an  agreement  was  reached  that  every- 
thing possible  would  be  done  to  have  them  released  under  the 
condition  that  they  would  leave  the  country  in  the  company  of 
the  French  delegates  at  the  end  of  the  congress,  and  it  was 
further  understood  that  no  issue  would  be  made  of  this  matter 
in  the  Congress  of  the  Red  International.  The  delegates  left 
this  meeting  and  said  nothing  more  about  it.  Suddenly,  on  the 
last  day  of  the  Congress,  just  before  adjournment,  Bukharin 
appeared  as  a  representative  of  the  Central  Committee  of  the 
Russian  Communist  Party  with  a  statement  accusing  the  im- 
prisoned anarchists  of  being  "Machnovtzi"  (members  of  Mach- 
no's  band)  and  raised  some  question  about  releasing  all  of 
them. 

Bukharin's  appearance  concerning  the  imprisoned  anarch- 
ists raised  a  fierce  storm  of  protest  especially  from  a  part  of 
the  French  delegates  who  charged  the  Soviet  government  with 
bad  faith  in  bringing  up  the  subject  when  they  had  formerly 
agreed  to  keep  it  quiet. 

Bukharin,  representing  the  Central  Committee  of  the  Rus- 
sian Communist  Party,  reported  their  action  on  the  subject  of 
the  imprisoned  anarchists  which  accused  them  generally  with 
supporting  Machno  and  indicating  tHat  they  were  in  prison  on 
that  account.  Whether  or  not  these  anarchists  were  supporters 
of  Machno  I  cannot  say,  neither  do  I  know  whether  these  par- 
ticular anarchists  were  ever  released.  I  heard  later  that  some 
of  them  had  refused  to  agree  to  leaving  Russia  when  released 
and  were  on  a  hunger  strike. 

Machno  at  that  time  was  a  strange  name  to  me  but  his 
prominence  in  this  controversy  on  the  floor  of  the  Red  Inter- 
national Congress  aroused  my  interest  and  I  began  to  inquire 
about  him.  But  I  soon  realized  that  trying  to  find  out  who  and 
what  Machno  is  was  like  trying  to  uncover  the  identity  of  the 
devil.  Thus,  Machno  was  like  a  sore  boil  to  the  communist 
elements  and  they  emphasized  him  as  a  murderer,  bandit  and 

5 


counter-revolutionist.  By  the  non-communist  element,  anarch- 
ists, many  syndicalists,  and  others,  Machno  is  highly  praised. 
Some  again,  anarchists,  and  even  communists,  described  the 
Machno  movement  as  originally  having  good  purposes,  but 
claimed  that  it  had  become  permeated  with  elements  who  were 
using  it  for  their  own  particular  purposes.  When  I  left  Moscow 
and  summed  up  what  I  had  learned  about  Machno  I  was  forced 
to  the  opinion  that  this  figure  will  never  be  quite  understood 
by  anyone.  His  motives  will  be  appreciated  or  condemned 
according  to  the  faction  his  appraisers  adhere  to.  From  this 
viewpoint  then,  the  subject  of  Machno  is  important  only  because 
he  presents  one  of  the  problems  of  the  Russian  situation.  In 
short,  it  is  not  the  personal  qualities  of  Machno  that  we  are 
concerned  with,  but  the  movement  he  has  grouped  around  him. 

There  is  abundant  proof  that  the  Russian  revolution  was 
not  the  venture  of  one  particular  party,  but  that  it  was  the 
spontaneous  outburst  of  the  Russian  masses.  Only  after  the 
crash  of  Czarism  do  we  see  the  various  political  parties  coming 
out  and  manoeuvering  for  favorable  positions.  After  a  period 
of  political  moves  the  Bolsheviki  stepped  into  power  on  pro- 
mises and  slogans  that  do  not  exist  today.  In  fact  they  are  in 
the  same  position  now  as  when  Kerensky's  coalition  govern- 
ment assumed  their  short  term  of  power.  But  the  Bolsheviki 
or  Communists  of  Russia  must  undergo,  because  of  their  altered 
revolutionary  policy,  the  same  critical  examination  as  any  other 
group.  That  it  still  clings  to  revolutionary  phrases  is  not  a 
cause  for  adopting  a  watch-and-wait  policy.  Conditions,  not 
words,  are  our  chief  concern,  and  only  with  a  knowledge  of 
the  conditions  of  the  Workers  and  Peasants  in  Russia  can  we 
apply  the  measure  of  the  revolutionary  yard-stick. 

There  are  many  ways  of  judging  the  Russian  revolution  at 
its  present  stage.  Many  excuse  the  present  policy  of  the  Soviet 
Government  on  the  ground  that  the  workers  and  peasants  are 
a  dark  depraved  mass  of  low  intelligence,  floundering  around 
in  a  dumb  state  of  mind,  which  makes  them  fertile  ground 
for  White-guard  activity.  Because  of  this,  a  strong  central 
dictatorship  is  necessary  to  curb  their  aimless  reactionary  ten- 
dencies. Therefore  they  have  been  stripped  of  every  right 
which  they  might  even  have  enjoyed  under  such  a  rule  as  the 
former  Czar.  But  those  who  say  this  are  as  ignorant  as  they 
claim  the  workers  and  peasants  are.  If  this  is  the  case  then 
the  Bolsheviki  would  have  never  assumed  power.  Nor  if  we 
judge  the  situation  correctly  would  there  have  ever  been  a  re- 
volution. What  is  paradoxical  about  this  argument  is  that  the  old 
czarist  regime  acted  on  the  assumption  that  the  workers  and 
peasants  were  just  the  opposite  and  they  likewise  suppressed 
them  vigorously  on  the  same  grounds.  But  whatever  they  can 
make  out  of  the  above  argument,  the  communists  in  any 
case  will  never  explain  away  their  fierce  suppression  and  abo- 
lition of  all  human  rights  from  the  very  masses  who  lifted  them 

6 


into  power.  This  will  always  be  a  blemish  that  will  cling  to 
them  like  a  birth-mark  and  like  the  legendary  writing  on  the 
wall  can  be  never  be  wiped  out. 

Another  way  of  judging  the  Russian  situation  is  the  theory 
that  as  long  as  the  present  government  retains  a  tight  hold  on 
the  powers  of  government  they  can  at  any  period  liquidate 
the  new  capitalistic  economic  program  for  the  benefit  of  the 
Russian  proletariat.  This  is  a  high-flown  theory,  as  this  book 
in  its  discussion  of  Russia  will  demonstrate,  not  in  a  direct, 
conscious  manner  perhaps,  as  the  author  did  not  have  this 
particular  phase  before  him  at  the  time  of  his  investigations, 
but  by  acquainting  the  reader  with  the  development  of  the  Rus- 
sian revolution  up  to  his  time.  The  Russian  revolution  to  date 
shows  one  thing  clearly:  "that  successful  revolutions  are  not 
the  product  of  the  abstract  human  will."  Human  will  power 
expressed  only  by  the  masses,  counts  as  a  factor  in  social  changes. 
Revolutionary  tacticians  flounder  helplessly  trying  to  regulate 
social  laws  to  fit  their  particular  plans.  They  hide  their  failure 
in  such  terms  as  "transition  periods"  or  "economic  retreats." 
One  is  as  vague  as  the  other  and  neither  means  anything. 

Whatever  explanations  are  advanced  on  the  Russian  situa- 
tion everybody  must  admit  that  for  the  present  at  least  we  can 
dismiss  from  our  minds  any  remaining  hope  that  capitalism 
has  not  been  invited  back  to  Russia,  and  from  this  viewpoint  we 
must  then  inquire  why  the  Russian  revolution  was  forced  into 
this  position.  Dismissing,  too,  any  wrong  idea  that  any  set  of 
individuals  were  the  direct  cause,  we  must  search  amongst  the 
ruins  for  the  reason  and  ask:  What  force  obstructed  the  path 
of  the  Russian  masses  in  their  surge  towards  emancipation? 
And  for  those  who  read  this  book  with  a  mind  bent  on  in- 
vestigation it  is  certain  that  much  valuable  information  can  be 
obtained.  Regardless  of  whatever  antipathy  the  reader  may 
develop  because  this  author  holds  certain  views,  there  are 
facts  in  this  book  that  compel  serious  thought. 

This  book  deserves  praise  mainly  because  it  is  a  study  of 
conditions  in  Russia,  and  not  men,  leaders  perchance,  of  a  re- 
volutionary government,  because  after  all  is  said  and  recorded 
about  the  personal  qualities  of  this  or  that  prominent  person 
in  Russia,  the  Russian  revolution  cannot  ever  be  correctly 
judged  unless  the  conditions  of  the  great  masses  are  known 
and  understood.  Labor  laws,  regulations  and  libertarian  de- 
crees are,  finally,  nothing  but  dried  ink  and  signify  nothing. 
Soviet  institutions  are  corrupted  by  much  the  same  methods 
as  any  other  governing  body. 

Particular  notice  is  due  to  the  chapters  that  describe  the 
many  socialist  parties  of  Russia  as  well  as  the  Anarchists 
and  Syndicalists.  These  various  factions  are  representative  of 
the  sociological  ideas  that  dominate  the  minds  of  the  Rus- 
sian people.  The  Chart  on  page  16,  especially,  makes  a  study 


of  these  movements  more  simple  and  assists  the  reader  to  a 
clearer  understanding  of  the  following  chapters. 

Lest  the  point  be  missed  it  is  necessary  to  call  to  the  read- 
ers' attention,  that  the  principal  point  which  the  author  has 
sought  to  show  is  that  the  Soviet  government  has  failed  not 
alone  in  the  sphere  of  production,  but  also-  in  the  field  of 
distribution.  Thus  it  is  that  the  Soviet  government  allows  a 
certain  amount  of  latitude  to  the  labor  unions  as  producing 
organs,  but  it  liquidates  entirely  into  the  state  the  once  power- 
ful co-operative  societies  which  were  an  integral  part  of  the 
Russian  national  life.  These  co-operative  societies  flourishing 
and  alive  under  their  former  mode  of  operation,  in  becoming 
state  organs  for  distribution,  and  henceforth  bureaucratically 
managed  have  withered  like  a  cut  flower  and  become  lifeless.  Free 
trade  inaugurated  in  the  spring  of  1921  is  an  indication  of  this 
decay. 

Some  of  the  features  of  bolshevik  rule  described  in  this  book 
have  now  disappeared  due  to  the  rapid  changes  that  are  being 
made  in  the  policy  of  the  bolsheviks,  but  each  such  feature 
should  be  recorded  and  rescued  from  oblivion.  The  failures 
and  the  mistakes  of  the  bolsheviks  are  the  red  danger  lanterns 
along  our  own  road  and  will  save  us  in  the  future  from  running 
into  the  same  obstacle,  just  as  the  red  lanterns  hung  out  by 
street  pavers  and  sewer  workers  save  us  from  running  into 
holes  or  piles  of  debris.  The  author  of  this  book  hangs  out 
these  danger  lanterns  where  everybody  can  see  them.  The 
information  the  author  gathered  in  1920  will  never  be  out  of 
date  as  long  as  we  ourselves  have  not  achieved  the  great  social 
transformation  in  this  country. 

Together  with  the  publishing  of  this  book  in  America  comes 
the  news  of  a  speech  made  by  Lenin  on  October  17,  1921,  in 
which  the  prophetic  writings  of  this  book  are  verified.  Lenin 
says  in  the  speech : 

"Our  new  economic  policy  consists  essentially  in  this, 
that  we  in  this  respect  have  been  thoroughly  defeated  and 
have  started  to  undertake  a  strategic  retreat;  before  we 
are  completely  defeated,  let  us  retreat,  and  DO  EVERY- 
THING OVER  AGAIN,  but  more  steady.  Communists  can 
not  have  the  slightest  doubt  that  we  on  the  economic  front 
have  suffered  an  economic  defeat,  and  a  very  serious  defeat 
at  that." 

He  also  says,  in  connection  with  the  former  policy  of  food 
requisition,  the  following: 

"On  the  economic  front  we  have,  with  the  attempt  to 
go  over  to  a  communist  society,  suffered  a  defeat  in  the 
spring  of  1921,  more  serious  than  any  previous  defeat  suf- 
fered at  the  hands  of  Denekin,  Kolchak  or  Pilsudsky,  a 
defeat  which  has  taken  expression  in  the  fact  that  our 
economic  policy  in  its  superstructure  has  proven  to  be  cut 

8 


off  from  the  substructure  and  did  not  create  the  stimulation 
of  the  productive  powers,  which  in  our  party  program  is 
recognized   as  the   fundamental    and   immediate    problem. 
"The  requisition  system  in  the  country  and  the  commun- 
ist method  of  solving  the  organization  problem  in  the  cities, 
these  are  the  policies  that  prevented  the  increase  in  the  pro- 
ductive powers  and  proved  to  be  the  main  cause  of  the  deep-, 
going  economic  and  political  crisis  with  which  we  collided  in 
the  spring  of  1921. 

"There  you  have  the  cause  of  what  has  happened, 
which,  from  the  viewpoint  of  our  general  policy,  cannot  be 
called  anything  else  than  a  thorough  defeat  and  a  retreat." 

But  the  defeat  that  Lenin  admits  and  which  he  terms 
"our  defeat"  should  not  be  construed  to  mean  a  defeat  of  all 
revolutionary  principles.  It  is  wholly,  and  only,  a  defeat  of 
the  political  theory  of  revolution. 

Bukharin  is  perhaps  the  frankest  of  all  when  he  says  in  an 
article  entitled,  "The  Soviets'  New  Policy": 

"When  the  state  apparatus  is  in  our  hands  we  can 
guide  it  in  any  desired  direction.  But  unless  we  are  at  the 
helm  we  can  give  no  direction  at  all. 

"Consequently  we  must  seize  power  and  keep  it  and 
make  no  political  concessions.  But  we  may  make  many 
economic  concessions.  But  the  fact  of  the  matter  is  we  are 
making  economic  concessions  in  order  to  avoid  making 
political  concessions. 

"We  shall  agree  to  no  coalition  government  or  anything 
like  it,  not  even  equal  rights  to  peasants  and  workers.  We 
cannot  do  that." 

The  above  quotations  are  but  proof  that  when  defeats  are 
spoken  of  they  are  meant  as  defeats  of  political  centralism; 
of  party  policies.  The  reasons  of  these  defeats  are  shown  by 
the  contents  of  this  book. 

GEO.  WILLIAMS. 
Feb.  10th,  1922. 


Author's  Preface 


WHEN  the  Russian  Revolution  broke  out  and  czarism  was 
overthrown,  there  was  not  a  socialist  who  did  not  greet 
this  revolution  with  joy.  All,  from  the  most  moderate  state 
socialist  and  reformist  to  the  most  radical  anarchist,  yes,  even  the 
liberals  of  Europe,  saw  progress  in  the  overthrow  of  czarism. 
When  later  Kerensky  wanted  to  steer  the  wreck  of  the  Russian 
ship  of  state  into  the  safe  harbor  of  the  entente,  and  continued 
the  war  against  Germany,  dissatisfaction  arose  among  the  Russian 
masses,  for  was  it  not  peace  that  the  revolution  was  going  to 
bring  them!  When  Kerensky,  with  the  coalition  Miljukov  and 
Gutschkov,  threw  himself  in  the  arms  of  the  entente,  he,  natur- 
ally, could  not  fulfill  the  peace  wishes  of  the  Russian  people.  It 
was  evident  that  the  revolutionary  wave  would  not  stop  but  keep 
on  rolling  further  in  the  direction  of  peace.  For  that  reason,  the 
party  that  put  peace  on  its  program  had  the  greatest  prospect 
of  winning,.'  And  that  party  was  the  bolsheviks. 

The  political  reasons  for  a  bolshevik  victory  were  at  hand. 
To  these  political  reasons  were  added  psychologic  and  economic 
reasons. 

The  psychologic  reasons:  The  Russian  people  had  for  cen- 
turies lived  under  the  rule  of  czarism.  The  autocracy  at  the  top 
did  everything  to  keep  alive  the  respect  for  authority  at  the  bot^ 
torn.  This  respect  for  authority  has  penetrated  so  deeply  into 
the  life  of  the  people  that  it  even  had  set  its  mark  on  the  rela- 
tions between  the  peasants  themselves  in  their  daily  life.  Sym- 
bolic of  this  is  the  word  "Little  Father."  One  of  the  strongest 
factors  for  preserving  this  respect  was  religion.  The  Catholicism 
of  the  Orthodox  Greek  Church  has  even  today  its  strongest  sup- 
port in  Russia.  The  revolution  has  shaken  faith  in  czarist  author- 
ity, but  has  not  completely  eradicated  it.  Faith  in  authority 
continues  to  live  in  Russia  and  is  even  to-day  stronger  than  in 
England  or  America.  For  this  reason  it  was  natural  that  the  new 
political  system  would  become  authoritarian  to  the  extent  that 
faith  in  authority  still  existed.  Bolshevism  is  an  authoritarian 
system.  Theoretically  it  professes  to  be  Marxian,  i.  e.y  authori- 
tarian-socialist. 

The  economic  reasons:  Already  during  the  Kerensky  period 
dissatisfaction  grew,  and  with  it  the  demand  for  independence 
grew  also  among  the  workers.  The  workers,  represented  by  the 
Workers'  Councils  or  the  Factory  Committees,  did  not  want  to  re- 
main the  wage  slaves  of  the  factory  owners  any  longer.  They 

10 


wanted  to  dispossess  the  factory  owners  and  take  over  the  factories 
themselves.  After  ,a  long-drawn  struggle  they  finally  succeeded 
in  this,  in  a  favorable  moment.  But,  as  they  were  in  no  way 
prepared  to  take  over  production,  and  as  they  had  no  unions, 
which  could  have  undertaken  that  task,  the  first  period  after 
the  taking  over  of  the  factories  by  the  workers  was  notable  for  a 
general  break-down.  The  workers  did  work  for  themselves  but- 
not  for  society.  They  had  no  industrial  unions  of  their  own; 
what  little  organization  they  had  was  too  little  developed,  and, 
consequently,  in  this  general  break-down,  a  strong  centralistic 
party  was  the  only  power  that  could  in  any  way  combat  chaos. 
One  might  even  say  that  it  was  lucky  that  the  bolshevik  party  was 
at  hand  and  was  vigorous  enough  to  undertake  it.  Otherwise, 
perhaps,  a  non-socialist  party,  the  Cadets,  might  have  payed  the 
way  for  immediate  reaction.  Thus,  as  it  happened,  the  ideal  of 
socialism  was  not  realized,  but  under  the  given  circumstances  it 
was  the  only  way  out.  Another  economic  factor  was  the  support 
of  the  effort  made  by  the  peasants  to  take  the  land  away  from  the 
large  land  owners.  The  economic  factors  in  city  and  country  were 
consequently,  favorable  to  a  bolshevik  victory. 

To-day  there  are  numerous  socialists  who  disapprove  of  bol- 
shevik rule  in  Russia.  They  are  adversaries  of  the  bolsheviks 
because  the  conditions  in  Russia  under  bolshevik  rule  are  not 
socialistic.  And,  to  be  true,  if  we  put  the  measuring  stick  of  social- 
ism or  communism  on  Russian  conditions,  then  it  is  really  not 
difficult  to  find  that  in  Russia  no  socialism  or  communism  exists, 
and  from  that  high  observation  point  one  can  then  condemn  bol- 
shevism. 

We  can  distinguish  three  kinds  of  opponents  of  Bolshevism. 

The  first  are  the  representatives  of  capitalism  and  the  capit- 
alist order  of  society.  These  are  all  the  states  which  during  the 
war  formed  the  entente  against  Germany  and  Austria-Hungary 
and  which  now  have  united  in  the  League  of  Nations,  and  besides 
there  is  America.  Add  thereto  capitalist  Germany.  All  these 
combat  bolshevism,  not  because  it  did  not  bring  them  what  they 
had  hoped  for — they  were,  on  the  contrary,  enemies  of  bolshevism 
i  from  the  start — but  because  they  felt  themselves  threatened  by 
it;  they  fear  that  a  bolshevik  Russia  may  be  a  constant  revo^ 
lutionary  danger  to  all  other  countries.  But  above  everything  else 
th?y  fear  a  revolution  in  their  own  country,  as  they  would  then 
Jose  their  privileges,  and  first  of  all  their  private  property,  on 
which  rests  the  whole  social  order  of  to-day.  In  addition  to  these 
general,  international,  capitalist  interests  there  are  special  na- 
tionalistic interests.  Thus,  France  belongs  to-day  to  the  bitterest 
opponents  of  bolshevism,  because  French  capitalists  more  than  all 
others  are  interested  with  their  money  in  Russia.  They  want, 
under  all  circumstances,  to  get  the  money  back  that  they  had 
lent  to  czarist  Russia.  Although  the  bolsheviks  time  and  again 
declared  that  they  were  willing  to  do  this — 'at  the  start  the  bol- 

11 


sheviks  cancelled  all  the  debts  of  czarism — the  French  capitalist* 
are  not  satisfied;  they  also  want  to  do  business  in  the  future  witt 
Russia,  so  rich  in  natural  resources.  And  this  applies  also  to  al 
other  capitalist  states.  For  these  reasons  they  fight  Soviet  Russic 
with  all  the  means  at  their  disposition :  through  open  or  secret  war 
and  through  support  given  to  the  Russian  counter-revolutionaries 

The  second  kind  of  opponents  of  bolshevism  are  the  moder- 
ate and  reformist  social-democrats.  These  were,  in  the  first  place 
opponents  from  the  start  to  bolshevik  revolutionary  tactics,  i  e. 
of  the  bolshevik  approval  of  the  dispersion  of  the  Constituenl 
Assembly  by  the  anarchists  (the  bolsheviks  were,  to  some  ex- 
tent, implicated  in  this  dispersion)  ;  in  the  second  place,  they  latei 
became  opponents  of  the  anti-democratic  and  anti-humanitariar 
measures  of  the  bolsheviks,  such  as,  the  suppression  of  the  free- 
dom of  the  press  and  assembly.  They  were  also  opponents  bj 
principle  to  the  immediate  and  absolute  expropriation  of  the  cap- 
italists and  of  the  land  owners  without  compensation.  According 
to  their  opinion  the  bolsheviks  should  have  sought  co-operation 
with  the  democrats  of  the  West.  They  invoked  the  aid  of  Marx 
and  said  that  socialism  could  only  come  about  by  a  development 
through  capitalism.  Politically,  there  should  first  have  com(. 
democracy  in  Russia  after  the  overthrow  of  czarism,  and  econom- 
ically, capitalism.  Thereupon,  after  this  development  had  slowly 
taken  place,  Russia  would  be  ripe  for  socialism.  Socialism  must 
come  through  a  progressive  development;  it  is  a  product  of  evolu- 
tion. Russia  was  not  yet  ripe  for  socialism.  They  also  oppose 
the  liberty-crushing  tendencies  of  the  bolsheyiki,  their  extra- 
ordinary commissions,  etc.  But  when  they  are  in  power,  they  by 
no  means  allow  themselves  to  be  guided  by  humanitarian  view- 
points in  their  policies.  A  Noske,  who  is  one  of  this  group,  as 
minister  of  defense,  has  not  behaved  more  humanely,  but  perhaps 
more  hypocritically,  than  the  bolsheviks.  On  the  whole,  this  group 
of  social-democrats,  social  patriots  and  reformists,  or  whatever 
you  call  them,  turn  down  the  principles,  methods  and  tactics 
of  the  bolsheviks,  because  the  bolsheviks  are  too  radical  for  them. 
These  social  democrats,  furthermore,  combat  the  bolsheviks  sec- 
retly or  openly — mostly  secretly — with  all  the  means  of  force. 
They  help  the  armed  counter-revolution,  support  the  blockade 
against  Russia,  etc.  During  the  social  democratic  reign  in  Ger- 
many that  government  did  all  it  could  against  bolshevik  Russia. 

To  the  third  kind  of  opponents  of  the  bolsheviks  belong, 
finally,  the  anti-authoritarian  socialists,  the  anarchists  and  the  syn- 
dicalists. While  the  two  first-mentioned  are  opponents  of  the 
revolution  as  such,  this  third  kind  are  entirely  revolutionary. 
And  they  are  not  adversaries  of  bolshevism  in  the  same  sense  as 
the  two  former.  They  are  rather  opponents  of  bolshevik  teach- 
ings, opponents  of  the  bolshevik  authoritarian  world  philosophy; 
they  are  philosophical  opponents.  They  fight  the  bolsheviks  on 
the  intellectual  field.  While  the  reformist  socialists  are  against 
the  bolsheviks,  because  they  went  too  far,  the  syndicalists  and 

12 


the  anarchists  take  a  negative  position  towards  the  bolsheviks, 
because  for  them  they  did  not  go  far  enough.  They  make  the 
objection  against  the  bolsheviks  that  their  methods  do  not  remove 
the  foundations  of  the  old  world  order  of  the  state  and  capitalism 
radically  enough,  that  they  have  made  too  great  concessions  to 
the  spirit  of  authority,  to  the  discretion  of  the  state,  and  to  the 
system  of  wage  slavery,  and  that  they  in  this  manner  have  hin- 
dered the  revolution  in  its  further  development.  They  reproach 
the  bolsheviks  that  they  have  set  up  a  new  state  and  thus  led 
the  revolution  into  the  wrong  channels.  They  show  the  bolsheviks 
the  inconsistency  of  their  position,  when  they,  on  ftie  one  hand, 
maintain  that  the  state  is  an  institution  of  oppression  and  class 
rule,  and  that  a  free  society  only  can  exist  without  the  state,  but, 
on  the  other  hand,  concentrate  all  their  power  on  making  this 
class  state  as  powerful  as  possible,  as  formidable  as  it  ever  was, 
and  perfect  it  through  the  strongest  kind  of  centralism.  The  rev- 
olutionary syndicalists  and  anarchists  furthermore  say  that  the 
bolsheviks  through  the  establishment  of  this  state  and  this  cen- 
tralism are  not  getting  nearer  to  liberty  but  are  getting  further 
aivay  from  it.  As  opponents  of  the  conquest  of  political  power 
they  make  the  objection  to  the  bolsheviks  that,  through  the  con- 
quest of  political  power,  they  have  become  power-seeking  politi- 
cians and  have  pushed  the  more  important  side  of  socialism  and 
communism  in  the  back-ground.  When  they  once  struck  out  on  the 
path  leading  to  political  power,  they  were  compelled  to  it.  From 
this  follows  suppression  of  the  other  socialist  parties  and  ten- 
dencies, suppression  of  the  right  of  free  press  and  assembly, 
etc.  They  are  also  opponents  of  bolshevik  methods  of  con- 
quering political  power,  of  centralism  and  of  state  socialism. 
But  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  state  that  they,  like  the  bolsheviks, 
are  bitter  enemies  of  private  property,  capitalism,  bourgeois  dem- 
ocracy and  any  kind  of  a  national  assembly. 

As  will  be  easily  understood,  the  capitalists  and  social- 
reformists  are  the  strongest  opponents  and  political  adversaries  of 
the  bolsheviks.  The  anarchists  and  revolutionary  syndicalists,  on 
the  other  hand,  are  also  opponents  on  principle  of  the  bolshevik 
methods,  but  if  the  bolsheviks  really  honestly  desire  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  state,  then  they  ought  to  approach  them  and  the  oppo- 
sition might  grow  into  a  fighting  alliance.  As  the  matter  now 
stands,  the  anarchists  and  the  revolutionary  syndicalists  take  a 
negative  position  towards  the  bolsheviks,  when  it  is  not  downright 
hostile. 

To  take  refuge  behind  the  cloak  of  "objectivity"  often  signi- 
fies cowardice,  for  nobody  is  capable  of  free  judgment  without 
any  subjective  views,  and  least  of  all  when  personalities  are  con- 
cerned. For  that  reason  I  freely  admit  that  I  am  a  revolutionary 
syndicalist.  But  when  I,  like  those  sharing  my  views,  do  not 
approve  of  all  the  methods  and  the  tactics  of  the  bolsheviks,  it 
would  be  tactless  in  the  highest  degree  for  the  bolsheviks  to  brand 
us  as  counter-revolutionists,  as  they  are  so  inclined  to  do,  in 

13 


order  to  discredit  the  revolutionary  syndicalists  and'  anarchists 
before  the  revolutionary  workers.  Before  the  outbreak  of  the 
revolution,  and  before  the  war,  it  would  not  have  occurred  to  any 
Russian  bolshevik  to  label  a  revolutionary  syndicalist  and  an 
anarchist  as  a  counter-re volutipnist,  only  because  he  rejected  the 
state,  the  dictatorship  of  the  proletariat  and  centralism  as  well 
as  capitalism.  On  the  contrary,  at  that  time,  the  anarchist  and 
syndicalist  would  have  had  far  more  right  to  give  the  bolsheviks 
that  surname.  But,  of  course,  he  did  not  call  the  bolsheviks  by 
any  such  name.  But  now  the  matter  has  changed.  The  bolshe- 
viks are  the  ruling  party.  Their  theories,  their  methods  and  their 
tactics  are  now  no  longer  platonic ;  they  have  become  a  cold  reality 
which  often  is  quite  perceptible  to  the  Russian  people.  The  the- 
ories and  methods  which  formerly  were  more  or  less  useful 
material  for  discussion  in  the  papers,  are  to-day  in  Russia  regula- 
tions, decrees  and  laws  for  the  Russian  people.  When  we  to-day 
enter  into  polemics  against  these  theories  and  tactics,  we  are  also 
compelled  to  take  a  stand  on  the  decrees.  But  when  we  do  this 
the  bolsheviks  brand  us,  if  our  criticism  happens  to  be  disapprov- 
ing, as  counter-revolutionaries.  We  can,  of  course,  just  as  little 
abstain  from  this  criticism  now  as  before.  But  the  difference  is 
that  we  to-day  have  a  concrete  basis  while  we  formerly  worked 
with  only  an  hypothesis.  One  thing  is  necessary  to  note,  how- 
ever: the  difference  between  decrees  and  laws  and  regulations 
which  spring  from  the  theories,  and  those  which  can  be  traced  to 
conditions  in  Russia.  A  criticism  of  the  latter  would  be  a  criti- 
cism of  the  revolution  itself,  seeing  that  the  bolshevik  party  is  a 
revolutionary  party.  But  such  a  criticism  we  cannot  yet  enter 
into,  particularly  as  revolutionaries.  A  criticism  of  the  former 
we  hold  to-day  to  be  just  as  necessary  as  formerly  the  discussion 
between  the  different  socialist  groups.  But,  besides,  we  must  in- 
vestigate the  effects  upon  the  people  of  both  kinds  of  decrees  and 
laws,  those  that  spring  from  theories,  and  those  that  are  traceable 
to  the  conditions.  As  little  as  we  believe  in  decrees  and  laws,  still 
we  must  admit  that  they  produce  a  reaction  among  the  people.  The 
popular  reaction  to  these  decrees  is  partly  friendly,  partly  hostile, 
according  to  their  nature  and  the  wishes  of  the  people.  For  there 
are  decrees  that  release  the  revolutionary  powers  of  the  people 
and  stimulate  them,  and  there  are  decrees  that  dam  them  up  a 
annihilate  revolutionary  initiative. 


iX^, 

3re 
pie 
nd 

,si- 


Such  an  investigation  is  very  difficult,  however.  The  classi- 
fication of  the  decrees  and  the  laws  into  such  as  originate  in  the 
theories  and  such  as  are  traceable  to  the  conditions  is,  namely,  in 
practice  not  possible  in  the  case  of  all  of  them.  A  number  of 
decrees  are  the  result  of  a  mixture  of  both  elements.  If  the  effects 
are  altogether  or  partially  stimulating  to  the  revolution  or  are 
hostile  to  liberty,  and  the  people  reacts  accordingly,  then  one 
could  easily  get  in  the  peculiar  position  of  wanting  to  approve 
of  60  per  cent  of  them  and  condemn  40  per  cent.  But  a  social 
revolution  is  no  problem  in  arithmetic ;  it  is  a  question  of  whether 

14 


one  accepts   of  the  revolution    (and  then   also  the  unbeautiful 
things)   or  one  does  not  accept  of  it  at  all. 

But  for  our  purpose  it  is  not  at  all  necessary  to  undertake 
such  an  impossible  analysis  of  social  events  by  which  we  would 
ascertain  the  percentage  of  every  component  part.  It  is  not  here, 
in  the  first  place,  a  question  of  criticizing  bolshevism,  but  the 
question  is  of  getting  a  clear  understanding  of  the  revolution  in 
Russia  and  what  it  has  given  to  us.  The  main  purpose  is  that  ^e 
revolutionary  workers,  for  whom  this  book  is  written,  may  learn 
a  lesson  from  it,  and  that  they,  at  the  outbreak  of  a  revolution 
in  their  own  country,  may  have  the  experiences  of  the  Russian 
revolution  at  their  disposition.  The  purpose  of  this  book  is,  conse- 
quently, not  counter-revolutionary  but  revolutionary.  If  the 
workers  after  a  true  and  exact  description  of  the  conditions  in 
Russia  should  come  to  a  partial  or  entire  rejection  of  such  con- 
ditions for  their  own  country,  it  should  not  be  allowed  to  mean 
a  rejection  of  the  social  revolution,  but  only  a  lesson,  how  not  to 
do  it  ivhen  revolution  breaks  out  in  their  own  country.  This  is 
the  main  purpose  of  this  book,  and  the  descriptions  from  Russia 
which  I  give,  true  to  facts  and  without  coloring  or  concealing, 
should  be  subordinated  to  this  purpose. 

If  conditions  in  Russia  are  not  such  as  many  a  man  has 
hoped,  or  as  he  had  pictured  to  himself  the  advent  of  the  social 
revolution,  he  should  consider  that  the  Russian  revolution  did 
not  come  at  a  time  when  the  Russian  workers  and  peasants  in 
their  great  masses  were  prepared  to  organize  their  economic  and 
political  life  according  to  the  principles  of  liberty,  but  that  the 
revolution  found  the  ivorkers  entirely  unprepared.  Adding  thereto 
the  comparatively  low  technical  development  of  the  Russian  work- 
er, one  might  thereupon  ask  oneself  whether  one  had  imagined 
that  the  revolution  would  come  in  the  forms  it  took  in  the  brain 
of  a  few  theorists  or  far-advanced  revolutionaries. 

Let  us  put  this  question  to  ourselves :  Being  that  the  Russian 
revolution  did  not  bring  what  we  had  hoped  for,  would  we  rather 
wish  that  it  had  not  come?  Only  an  anti-revolutionist  could  have 
such  a  negative  wish.  But  every  revolutionary  must  stand  by  the 
revolution  like  a  soldier  with  rifle  at  his  side,  with  his  heart,  with 
his  whole  feeling  and  sympathy.  And  how  could  we  otherwise? 
We,  who  have  always  striven  for,  hoped  for,  and  worked  for  the 
revolution,  should  we  now,  when  she  has  come,  whom  we  have 
sung  about  in  our  songs,  draw  back  from  her,  like  a  loveless 
mother  from  a  misshapen  child?  No,  the  revolution  is  here. 
It  is  not  what  we  had  hoped.  It  is  a  deformed,  perhaps  partly 
substituted  child.  But  it  is  our  child.  We  are  the  parents.  It  is 
up  to  us  to  recognize  the  child,  to  take  care  of  it,  to  bring  it  up, 
to  change  its  form  and  to  make  it  into  as  strong  and  free  and 
proud  a  child  as  possible. 

AUGUSTINE  SOUCHY. 

Berlin  in  December,  1920. 


15 


Diagram  of  the  Socialist  and  Anarchist 
Movements  of  Russia  and  Ukraine 


'Union  y^laxi 

alists  1005 
feadetffieffein 


ijj  of 
3he  Proletariat  * 

^narcKists(i9P3)Divided  into 


Pan. 
CUtiivewalist) 
Anarchists 

1918 

Individualist 
Anarchists 
1903 

Communist 
Anarchists 

1903 

Syndicalists 
1903 

\        / 

Anarchists 
oFUkrainc 
VabAt"l918 

See  chapter,  "The  Socialist  Movement  in  Russia",  pages  17  to  31 
also  chapter  'The  Socialist  Movement  in  Ukraine",  pages  129  to  1 


If  a  book  is  worth  reading  it  is  worth  studying. 


16 


Workers  and  Peasants  in  Russia 
and  Ukraine 


The  Socialist  Movement  in  Russia 

AS  the  main  purpose  of  this  book  is  to  give  a  presentation 
of  the  Russian  revolution  and  the  conditions  It  has  created, 
the  socialist  parties  or  movements  which  exist  in  Russia 
will  be  described  only  to  the  extent  that  it  is  necessary  for  an 
understanding  of  Russian  conditions  and  the  revolution. 

The  Marxists    (Social-Democrats) 

The  Russian  socialist  movement  was  in  the  beginning  not 
social-democratic.  Even  the  kind  of  socialism  that  Bakunin  repre- 
sented had  not  arisen  on  the  ground  of  social-democratic  theories. 
It  was  a  kind  af  socialism  that  grew  out  of  the  particular  agri- 
cultural character  of  the  country.  This  socialism  called  itself  the 
movement  of  the  Narodniks.  This  movement  was  a  special 
Russian  school  of  socialism.  Later  there  also  arose  in  Russia, 
under  West-European  influence,  a  special  social-democratic  school 
of  socialism.  Principal  founder  of  this  school  was  Pleckcmov, 
who  formed  his  views  under  the  influence  of  Marx  and  Engels. 
Thus  there  were  formed  in  the  year  1883  the  beginnings  of  the 
social-democratic-marxist  party.  As  this  school  did  not  fetch  the 
corner  stones  of  its  theories  from  the  tendencies  of  the  Russian 
labor  and  peasant  movement  but  from  other  countries  and  de- 
veloped particularly  by  leaning  on  the  German  labor  movement, 
its  principles  and  theories  will  be  familiar  to  the  West-European 
workers  and  to  the  German  workers  in  particular.  It  is  Marxism. 
Under  the  rule  of  the  Russian  knout  a  revolutionary  fighting 
spirit  has,  naturally,  flourished  among  them,  like  among  all  Rus- 
sian revolutionaries,  as  they  were  compelled  to  be  radical  against 
czarism. 

The  social-democratic  party  of  Russia  became,  however, 
very  early  divided  in  a  right  and  a  left  wing.  In  the  year  of 
1905  it  came  to  an  open  break  and  a  split  between  the  two  wings. 
The  radicals  were  in  the  majority  and  called  themselves  "The 
Majority"  or  Bolsheviki.  The  moderates  were  in  the  minority,  in 
Russian  Mensheviki.  With  the  minority,  the  mensheviks,  re- 
mained Plechanov,  and  to  them  belonged  also  Martov  and  Abramo- 

17 


vitch.  The  leader  of  the  bolsheviks  was  Lenin.  Plechanov  died 
soon  after  the  outbreak  of  the  Russian  revolution.  He  was  con- 
sidered the  father  of  Russian  social-democracy. 

The  program  of  the  m.ensheviks  is  similar  to  that  of  the  left 
wing  of  German  social-democracy  or  the  right  wing  of  the  inde- 
pendents. They  consider  themselves  of  the  same  standpoint  as  the 
right  of  the  Independent  Socialist  Party  of  Germany.  (U.  S. 
P.  D.) 

We  are  here  more  interested  in  the  program  of  the  bolshe- 
viks, because  that  party  is  in  power  and  has  become  the  ruling 
party  of  Russia.  It  is,  consequently,  their  program  which  is  more 
or  less  realized.  And  even  if  we  cannot  trace  the  Russian  condi- 
tions completely  to  their  program,  as  life  always  turns  out  dif- 
ferent from  the  wording  of  the  program,  still,  the  program  of  this 
party  has,  without  doubt,  had  influence  on  the  development  since 
the  bolsheviks  took  the  power,  as  well  as  on  the  present  situa- 
tion, if  we  admit  at  all  that  man  can  exert  influence  on  social 
events.  If  we  now  pick  out  the  most  important  points  in  the  bol^ 
shevik  program,  we  have  in  a  sense  a  criterion  on,  to  what  extent 
the  conditions  in  Russia  are  traceable  to  the  politics  and  the  the- 
ory of  the  bolsheviks  and  to  what  extent  they  are  traceable  to  the 
revolution  itself. 

To  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  Russian  bolsheviks  be- 
longs the  Dictatorship  of  the  Proletariat,  the  conquest  of  political 
power  through  the  social-democratic  party,  which  is  falsely  said 
to  mean  through  the  proletariat;  the  confiscation  of  the  factories, 
mines,  shops,  furnaces,  in  short,  of  the  whole  industry  as  well  as 
the  land,  and  transforming  it  into  state  property;  the  organ- 
izing of  economic  life  through  the  state.  It  says  word  for  word 
in  their  program:  "The  state  power  ceases  to  be  a  parasitical 
apparatus  which  stands  above  the  process  of  production;  it  be- 
gins to  change  into  an  organization  which  easily  fills  the  function 
of  managing  the  economic  life  of  the  country."  The  suspension 
of  the  political  rights  of  the  exploiting  class,  as  well  as  all  other 
curtailments  of  freedom  which  proved  to  be  necessary  for  the  es- 
tablishment of  the  dictatorship  of  the  proletariat,  the  organizing 
of  consumption  through  the  obligatory  membership  of  all  citizens 
of  the  state  in  the  Consumers'  Unions,  are  necessary  consequences. 
These  are  then  state  organs. 

We  have  now  briefly  sketched  the  principles  and  the  program 
of  the  bolshevik  party,  which  later,  after  it  had  conquered  the 
power,  took  the  name  of  the  Communist  Party.  According  to 
Lenin's  explanations  it  took  the  name  of  (<The  Communist  Party" 
because  it  wished  to  differentiate  itself  from  the  social-democrats 
and  at  the  same  time  wanted  to  draw  over  the  workers  which  be- 
fore ivere  in  the  anarchist  and  revolutionary-syndicalist  move- 
ment. We  shall  later  have  the  opportunity  to  see  to  what  extent 
the  party  has  been  able  to  impress  its  program  upon  the  social 
life  of  Russia. 


18 


The  Narodniks   (National  or  People's  Socialist) 
The    Social-Revolutionaries   of   the    Right 

While  the  Marxists,  the  bolsheviks  as  well  as  the  mensheviks, 
are  a  foreign  growth  on  Russian  soil,  the  socialism  of  the  narod- 
niks is  of  a  purely  Russian  origin.  Narod  means  '  'people."  The 
socialism  of  the  narodniks  was  the  socialism  of  the  people,  a  spe- 
cial national  product.  One  of  the  first  and  most  prominent  men 
in  this  movement  was  Lavrov.  Tschemitschevsky  also  belonged 
to  them.  This  movement  is  older  than  the  Marxian  movement. 
Later  they  called  themselves  also  the  Social-Revolutionary  Party. 
While  the  Marxians,  in  accordance  with  their  theory,  ascribe  a 
greater  importance  to  the  city  proletariat,  the  Social-Revolution- 
ary Party  was  mainly  a  peasant  party.  It  was  more  a  peasant 
socialism  than  a  socialism  of  the  city  proletariat.  As  Russia  is  ,an 
agrarian  country  it  was  natural  that  the  Social-Revolutionary 
Party  was  the  most  popular  among  the  population,  which  to  more 
than  80  per  cent  consists  of  peasants.  To  this  party  belonged  the 
Grandmother  of  the  Revolution,  Breschkovskaja,  "Babuschka" — 
as  she  was  called,  who  after  she  was  freed  from  Siberian  im- 
prisonment through  the  revolution,  went  abroad,  after  the  fall  of 
the  Kerensky  government,  and  made  common  cause  with  the 
American  capitalists. 

As  was  the  case  with  the  Marxians,  this  party  also  devel- 
oped a  left  and  a  right  wing. 

The  right  wing  was  in  favor  of  the  constituent  assembly, 
i.  e.,  it  was  parliamentarian,  like  the  mensheviks.  Its  intellectual 
leader  was  Tschernov.  They  also  had  other  things  in  common 
with  the  mensheviks,  although  they  were  not  Marxians,  nor  are 
so  yet.  They  were  for  a  coalition  government  with  the  Constitu- 
tional Democrats  (Cadets),  and  they  formed,  together  with  the 
cadets  Gutschkov  and  Miljukov  and  the  mensheviks,  the  coalition 
government  under  Kerensky.  Kerensky  himself  belonged  to  the 
right  wing  of  the  Social-Revolutionary  Party.  According  to  the 
program  of  the  social-revolutionaries  of  the  right  the  National 
(Constituent)  Assembly  should  have  the  power  to  decide  over  the 
constitution  of  the  country  as  well  as  over  socialization  and  all 
important  questions.  It  was  and  is  the  program  of  a  bourgeois 
democracy. 

The  Social-Revolutionaries  of  the  Left 

Different  was  the  Left  Wing  of  the  social-revolutionaries. 
These  revolutionaries  were  the  old  Terrorists  against  the  czarist 
system.  They  are  still  terrorists  to-day  but  differ  from  the  bol- 
sheviks in  this  that  they  recognize  only  the  personal  terror  but 
reject  the  systematic,  organized  terror.  They  are  in  favor  of 
murdering  a  despot  (the  czar)  but  against  the  use  of  deterrent 
measures  through  a  special  institution  formed  for  that  purpose, 
as  the  Ochrana  was  during  the  czar  and  The  Extra-ordinary  Com- 
mission (Tscheka)  during  bolshevik  rule. 

19 


The  revolutionary  process  accelerated  the  split  in  the  large 
Social-Revolutionary  Party.  Even  after  the  revolution,  up  to  No- 
vember, 1917,  the  left  wing,  the  party  opposition,  took  a  stand 
against  the  coalition  government;  it  represented,  principally,  the 
international  standpoint,  and,  finally,  in  November,  1917,  it  con- 
stituted itself  The  Social  Revolutionary  Party  of  the  Left. 

This  new  party  was  formed  mainly  by  the  active  peasantry, 
and  their  intellectual  leaders  strove  to  pull  the  masses  of  the 
peasantry  away  from  the  influence  of  the  Social-Revolutionary 
Party  of  the  Right.  Besides,  it  wished  to  pull  those  elements  into 
the  revolutionary  process  who  were  strange  to  Marxism  and  which 
had  mainly  developed  in  the  Russian  school  of  the  "Narodnit- 
schestvo" :  federalism,  the  ethical  viewpoint  and  activism.  Up  to 
the  peace  of  Brest-Litovsk  the  party  of  the  left  social-revolution- 
aries worked  in  solidarity  with  the  bolsheviks  in  all  Soviets  and  in 
the  government.  Of  the  seven  People's  Commissariats  it  took  over 
Agriculture,  which  is  of  such  great  importance  in  Russia,  In  order 
to  carry  into  effect  the  law  of  socialization  of  the  land. 

As  the  party,  in  connection  with  the  peace  of  Brest-Litovsk, 
could  not  agree  with  German  Imperialism,  it  stepped  out  of  the 
government.  From  the  time  the  party  ceased  to  be  a  government 
party,  the  politics  of  the  Soviet  Government  were  dictated  solely 
by  the  bolsheviks.  Now  began  the  system  of  terror,  the  system 
of  forcible  requisition  of  bread  from  the  peasants,  the  supremacy 
of  the  police  organs  and  the  re-introduction  of  capital  punishment. 
All  these  measures  the  Social-Revolutionary  Party  of  the  Left  dis- 
approved of,  the  same  as  other  socialist  parties.  In  July,  1918, 
at  the  time  of  the  V.  Soviet  Congress,  the  party  already  had  40 
per  cent  of  the  mandates.  At  that  time,  however,  the  party  wished 
to  turn  with  all  their  might  against  bolshevik  co-operation  with 
German  imperialism.  This  took  expression  in  the  act  of  murder- 
ing Count  Mirbach,  the  German  ambassador  in  Moscow. 

This  act  gave  the  bolsheviks  cause  and  pretense  for  a  settle- 
ment with  the  competing  party,  and  they  started  a  system  of  per- 
secution, which  extends  to  the  present,  that  is,  over  two  years. 
All  party  papers  were  suppressed,  many  members  were  shot  and 
hundreds  and  thousands  of  soviet  delegates  who  belonged  to  that 
party  were  excluded  from  the  Soviets.  The  result  of  this  was  that 
the  party  became  illegal,  and  their  most  active  members  came  in 
prison,  whereby  the  party  lost  the  possibility  of  influencing  the 
masses,  especially  the  work-village.  The  active  peasantry,  which 
in  the  soviet  representatives  no  longer  saw  representatives  of 
their  class,  was  driven  to  a  course  of  desperate  insurrections.  But 
the  peasant  rebellions  were  suppressed  with  force  and  led  still 
closer  to  the  abyss  which  separates  the  bolshevik  power  from  the 
village. 

I  have  given  this  description  of  the  development  of  this  party 
after  the  account  of  one  of  its  leaders,  who  in  the  first  period 
after  the  overthrow  of  the  Kerensky  government  was  a  member 
of  the  Council  of  People's  Commissars,  Isaak  Steinberg,  who  had 

20 


the  People's  Commissariat  of  Agriculture  in  charge.  Also  in  the 
presentation  of  their  program  I  shall  follow  his  account. 

The  sot-called  period  of  transition  does  not  appear  to  this 
party  as  an  epoch  which  in  principle  differs  from  the  socialist 
epoch.  The  period  of  transition  ought  not,  in  its  initial  forms,  to 
realize  any  other  principles  than  those  which  are  intended  for 
socialist  society.  If  one  speaks  of  "the  dying  out  of  the  state," 
one  must  not  allow  state  ideology  and  state  compulsion  to  be  rea- 
lized in  the  highest  degree.  One  must  not  depend  on  the  provi- 
sional character  of  these  periods  of  transition,  for  world  history 
has  already  often  enough  proven  that  the  provisional  has  perpet- 
uated itself. 

The  Social-Revolutionary  Party  of  the  Left  does  not  believe 
in  accomplishing  the  social  revolution  by  means  of  a  daring  mi- 
nority, perchance  a  communist  party.  It  takes  the  standpoint 
that,  insofar  as  the  social  revolution  means  not  only  the  transfer 
of  the  means  of  production  from  the  hands  of  one  owner  into  the 
hands  of  another  owner,  but  also  a  radical  overturning  of  all 
social  and  intellectual  habits  of  men,  as  well  as  the  remodeling 
of  the  process  of  production  and  distribution,  the  result  of  the  rev- 
olution can  be  made  safe  only  by  means  of  the  free  and  active 
participation  of  the  masses  themselves.  But  this  does  not  mean 
that  the  party  is  parliamentarian.  It  is,  on  the  contrary,  anti- 
parliamentarian  and  also  opposed  to  the  Constituent  Assembly. 

Nor  is  this  party  for  the  "Dictatorship  of  the  Proletariat," 
but  for  the  Dictatorship  of  the  active  majority.  But  in  agrarian 
countries,  such  as  Russia,  the  foundation  of  the  social  revolution 
must  be  a  union  of  the  active  peasantry  and  the  city  proletariat, 
not  necessarily  in  an  arithmetic  equality  on  the  part  of  the  peas- 
ant majority,  but  in  the  form  of  participation  with  equal  rights  of 
these  two  main  classes. 

In  contradistinction  to  the  bolshevik  party  the  social-revolu- 
tionaries of  the  left  stand  on  a  federalist  basis.  The  whole  social 
structure  of  the  transition  period  must  be  built  on  the  principles 
of  federalism,  political  as  well  as  economic.  The  party  is  a  soviet 
party  and  demands  that  the  elections  to  the  Soviets,  which  con- 
stitute the  political  axis  of  the  period  of  transition,  only  take  place 
on  the  condition  of  free  elections  for  the  working  masses,  and  that 
in  the  activities  of  the  councils  the  most  far-reaching  principles 
of  democracy  be  preserved ;  otherwise,  the  whole  council  or  soviet 
system  is,  in  their  opinion,  turned  into  a  mockery  of  the  will  of 
the  workers,  as  at  present,  and  forces  the  working  masses,  in  a 
sense  of  disillusionment,  to  again  long  for  the  universal  and  free 
franchise  and  all  the  other  formal  principles  of  bourgeois  democ- 
racy. The  function  of  the  councils  or  Soviets  shall  only  be  to 
serve  as  an  extension  structure  of  socialist  society,  politically  and 
in  a  general  cultural  aspect,  and  for  that  reason  all  branches  of 
labor  and  all  groups  of  workers  must  be  represented  in  them.  The 
economic  function,  the  production  and  distribution  of  goods, 
should  rest  exclusively  in  the  hands  of  producers  and  consumers, 

21 


which  implies  labor  unions  and  consumers'  unions.  The  party, 
consequently,  does  not  demand  a  nationalization  of  production, 
and  this  on  the  ground  that  it  means  only  the  turning  over  of 
all  the  economic  processes  to  the  state  and  the  worst  kind  of  state 
capitalism.  The  socialization  of  the  means  of  production  and 
distribution  should  not  mean  the  transfer  of  the  same  into  the 
"ownership"  of  the  state,  but  their  transformation  into  the  com- 
mon wealth  o/  all  the  workers,  as  the  party  had  outlined  it  in 
the  land  socialization  law,  which  has  been  almost  repealed  by  the 
present  government.  The  party  advocates  the  creating  of  pro^ 
ductive  societies  by  the  active  peasantry.  But  the  distribution  of 
goods  shall  be  in  the  hands  of  the  workers'  and  peasants'  con- 
sumers' societies.  The  federative  co-ordination  of  these  two  kinds 
of  economic  organs  creates  the  social  pyramid  which  connects  the 
economic  activity  of  the  village  and  the  city,  through  which 
arrangement  the  role  of  the  state — including  the  soviet  state — is 
replaced  with  the  active  participation  of  all  the  organized  citi- 
zens. 

The  party  of  the  social-revolutionaries  of  the  left  has  from 
the  beginning  recognized  individual  terror  as  one  of  the  fighting 
methods,  with  the  precaution  that  it  be  used  with  the  greatest 
care.  But  it  rejects  completely  terrorism  as  a  system  of  govern- 
ment and  as  a  system  for  the  realization  of  socialism.  For  that 
reason  it  also  rejects  capital  punishment,  which  was  again  intro- 
duced by  the  bolsheviks. 

On  the  international  field  the  party  wants  to  enter  into  con- 
nection with  all  organizations  and  social-revolutionary  movements, 
which  defend  other  than  purely  Marxian  methods  for  the  build- 
ing of  a  socialist  society. 

I  have  treated  the  program  of  this  party  a  little  more  at 
length  than  that  of  the  bolsheviks,  because  bolshevik  literature 
has  inundated  all  Europe,  and  hence  it  may  be  assumed  that  most 
of  the  politically  interested  hand  and  brain  workers  know  this 
program.  On  the  other  hand,  hardly  anything  is  known  about 
this  party  outside  the  boundaries  of  Russia,  and  it  is  therefore  an 
act  of  equalizing  justice. 

The  Maximalists 

Out  of  the  great  movement  of  the  narodniki  or  social-revolu- 
tionaries ^there  grew,  during  the  pangs  of  the  revolution  of  1905, 
the  Maximalist  movement.  At  the  congress  of  the  social-revo- 
lutionaries of  1904,  a  wing,  under  Riefkin,  placed  itself  to  the  ex- 
treme left.  It  put  up  a  maximum  program  and  rejected  not  only 
the  minimum  program  of  the  Social-Revolutionary  Party,  but  also 
the  program  of  all  other  parties,  such  as  the  then  still  united  Marx- 
ist parties.  All  other  parties,  the  present  bolsheviks  included,  were 
then  minimalists. 

Already  at  the  congress  of  1904  they  wished  to  have  nothing 
to  do  with  the  reform  program  of  the  other  parties.  They  did 

22 


not  want  to  be  reformists,  but  revolutionaries,  and  demanded  of  a 
revolution  the  realization  of  the  maximum  that  a  revolution  can 
bring.  Already  then,  one  of  their  theoreticians  represented  the 
idea  of  the  Soviets.  The  maximalist  Tagin  was  the  man  who  put 
forward  the  idea  of  Soviets,  and  together  with  the  anarchists  he 
represented  the  most  pronounced  maximalism. 

When  the  maximalists  could  not  come  to  any  unity  with  the 
minimalists,  they  cut  loose  from  the  other  parties  and  foundecf  an 
independent  organization.  But  they  did  not  call  themselves  a 
party,  but  a  union,  being  that  they  did  not  believe  in  the  revolu- 
tionary qualities  of  a  party.  In  a  party,  tendencies  towards  power 
are  always  noticeable,  which  never  allow  the  revolutionary  prin- 
ciple of  freedom  to  come  to  full  development.  For  that  reason 
they  rejected  the  centralist  party  and  formed  a  federalist  union. 

.  Already  from  the  start  the  maximalists  took  an  anti-parlia- 
mentarian standpoint.  They  never  took  part  in  the  elections  to 
the  Duma  and  were,  together  with  the  anarchists  and  anarcho- 
syndicalists,  the  first  and  most  passionate  adversaries  of  the  Con- 
stitutent  Assembly.  The  Maximalist  Union  was  recruited  from 
the  ranks  of  the  poorer  peasants  and  the  city  proletariat.  They 
have  the  qualities  of  a  fighting  class  organization  and  are  in  the 
highest  degree  active  class  militants.  They  always  emphasize  with 
the  greatest  force  the  staking  of  the  personality  and  differ  on  this 
point  from  the  Marxists.  They  were  also  terrorists ;  they  are  still 
adherents  of  the  personal  terror,  but  like  the  left  social-revolu- 
tionaries, they  reject  governmental  terror  and  the  system  of  ter- 
ror. 

As  already  indicated,  they  are  a  soviet  movement,  yes,  in  fact, 
they  belonged  to  those  who  first  came  forward  with  the  soviet 
idea.  They  differ,  though,  from  other  soviet  parties,  for  instance, 
from  the  ruling  Bolshevik  Party,  in  that  they  take  exception  to 
party  Soviets.  One  of  their  mottoes  is:  All  power  to  the  Soviets— 
not  to  the  party  Soviets  but  to  the  class  Soviets.  They  demand 
class  power  but  not  party  power,  while  the  bolsheviks,  in  their 
opinion,  demanded  only  power  for  the  party.  Principally  from 
these  reasons  they  are  also  opponents  of  the  Bolshevik  Party. 

In  the  beginning  of  the  revolution,  after  the  overthrow  of 
Kerensky,  they  had,  in  common  with  the  anarchists,  their  greatest 
influence  in  such  places  as  Kronstadt,  Samara  and  Kursk.  They 
were  not  organized  according  to  centralist,  but  decentralist  prin- 
ciples. In  many  places  their  faction  was  the  strongest  one  in  the 
soviet.  But  the  faction  was  not  tied  down  by  party  discipline  in 
the  voting.  Everybody  could  vote  as  he  desired.  This  connects 
with  the  fact  that  they  did  not  want  to  acquire  the  power.  The 
bolsheviks,  on  the  other  hand,  who  for  fifteen  years  had  prepared 
themselves  for  the  power,  were  naturally  compelled  to  resort  to 
a  different,  much  more  rigid  principle  of  organization.  The  iron 
party  discipline  of  the  bolsheviks  required  absolute  obedience  to 
the  party  orders  issued.  This  centralism  and  this  discipline  helped 

23 


the  Bolshevik  Party  to  power,  although  it  was  by  far  not  the 
strongest  party  in  every  place. 

As  the  program  of  the  maximalists  in  many  respects  coin- 
cides with  the  program  of  the  social-revolutionaries  of  the  left, 
a  separate  presentation  is  unnecessary.  Since  1905  the  motto  of 
the  maximalists  was :  In  unity  of  hammer,  plow  and  thought  lies 
power  and  right,  and  since  1919:  All  power  to  the  Soviets;  no 
power  to  the  pcfrrty. 

As,  at  present,  during  the  rule  of  the  Bolshevik  Party,  all 
parties  have  become  illegal,  they  have  retired  to  the  place  where 
it  still  is  most  possible  to  bring  their  ideas  before  the  people, 
namely  to  Ukraine.  Thus  the  maximalists  and  the  anarchists,  etc., 
especially  under  Machno,  had  the  best  possibility  in  Ukraine  to 
propagate  their  ideas.  Besides  the  maximalists,  there  is ' still  an- 
other union  of  left  social-revolutionaries,  who  have  also  developed 
out  of  the  narodniki  and  now  call  themselves  Barbists.  The  name 
Barbists  comes  from  the  name  "barba,"  struggle.  They  are  fight- 
ers. In  principle  they  do  not  differ  from  the  maximalists. 

The  agrarian  program  of  the  maximalists  and  the  barbists 
rests  on  the  mir-organization.  As  far  as  possible  the  peasants 
shall  cultivate  the  land  on  communist  lines.  The  land  of  the  large 
land  owners  and  the  kulaks  (rich  peasants)  shall  be  delivered  into 
the  possession  of  the  commune.  The  peasants  shall  thereafter 
cultivate  it  in  common.  Where  the  peasants  divide  up  the  land 
between  themselves  they  shall  not  be  stopped  with  force,  but  care 
should  be  taken  that  nobody  receives  more  than  he  himself  can 
cultivate.  The  peasants  of  a  village,  both  those  who  cultivate 
their  own  land  and  those  who  cultivate  the  land  in  common,  form 
a  commune.  They  enter  into  exchange  relations  with  other  com- 
munes and  the  cities.  In  so  far  as  the  exchanged  objects  consist 
of  larger  agricultural  implements,  agricultural  machinery  and  so 
on,  they  go  into  the  possession  of  the  commune.  The  peasants 
shall  be  guaranteed  the  greatest  independence,  politically  and  eco^- 
nomically. 

These  currents  have  developed  principally  in  Ukraine,  and 
even  the  anarchists  of  Ukraine  accept  this  or  a  very  similar  pro- 
gram, so  that  all  these  movements  differ  only  in  their  shadings, 
but  not  in  principle.  They  are  all  decentralist,  anti -parliamen- 
tarian, anti-state  and  federalist. 

The  Anarchists 

Besides  the  above  mentioned  movements  there  is  still  an- 
other group  which  belongs  to  the  socialist  world  in  Russia,  namely 
the  anarchists.  If  we  disregard  single  personalities,  such  as 
Bakunin  and  Kropotkin  and  the  Russian  anarchists  in  foreign 
countries,  we  can  trace  the  definite  establishment  of  the  anarch- 
ist movement  in  Russia  to  the  year  of  1903. 

As  among  the  social-democrats  and  the  narodniks,  there  are 
also  many  currents  among  the  anarchists.  The  Individualist 

24 


Anarchists  have  no  movement  worth  mentioning.  The  Commun- 
ist Anarchists  and  the  Anarcho-syndicalists ,  on  the  contrary,  had 
at  the  outbreak  of  the  revolution  in  1917,  and  later,  a  mass  move- 
ment. But  as  they  did  not  want  to  conquer  power  but  only  de- 
stroy it,  in  accordance  with  their  principles,  they  have  to-day 
again  lost  their  importance.  The  anarcho-syndicalist  tendencies 
are  stronger  among  the  working  people,  and  the  anarchist  ideas 
gain  a  footing  among  the  peasantry  of  Ukraine. 

There  was.  and  is  now,  in  Russia,  anarchist-narodniks,  that 
is,  the  native  movement  of  the  people,  and  the  anarchist-emi- 
grants. The  ideas  of  the  anarchists  are  the  same  as  in  other 
countries.  Of  importance  here  is  only  the  position  taken  by  the 
anarchists  to  the  revolution.  .The  Tolstoyan  Anarchists  were  in 
the  minority.  The  revolutionary  anarchists  have  taken  a  very 
active  part  in  the  revolution  and  played  a  prominent  role,  particu- 
larly in  the  beginning  of  the  revolution,  in  its  destructive  period 
against  czarism  and  Kerensky.  They  were,  self-evidently,  against 
the  Constituent  Assembly,  according  to  the  formula:  All  power 
to  the  Soviets;  and  all  this  before  the  bolsheviks  adopted  these 
mottoes.  In  many  places  the  anarchists  began  the  revolution. 
For  instance,  in  Jekaterinburg  in  the  Ural  the  anarchists  had  car- 
ried out  the  revolution  earlier  than  the  workers  of  Petrograd. 
Already  on  June  5,  1917,  the  workers  demonstrated  under  the 
leadership  of  anarchists  in  Moscow  and  Petrograd  against  the 
Kerensky  government  with  the  motto:  All  power  to  the  Soviets. 

The  credit  for  dissolving  the  constituent  assembly  does  not 
belong  to  the  bolsheviks,  but  to  the  anarchists.  It  was  the  anarch- 
ist Anatol  Gregorevitch  Zelesniakoff  who,  in  January,  1918,  at  the 
head  of  the  Kronstadt  sailors,  broke  into  the  session  of  the  Con- 
stituent Assembly  and  told  the  gentlemen  representatives  that 
they  had  now  talked  enough  and  that  they  could  now  go  home, 
or  the  sailors  would  help  to  get  them  started  on  the  road.  First 
after  they,  through  the  direct  action  of  the  workers  and  soldiers 
with  anarchist  leanings,  were  faced  with  a  fait  accompli  (an  ac- 
complished fact),  the  parties  accepted  the  situation,  and  subse- 
quently Lenin  also  gave  this  fact  his  approval.  Zelesniakoff  fell 
in  the  fight  against  Denekin's  white  guardists  at  Jekaterinoslav 
on  July  26,  1919,  after  Denekin  had  put  a  price  on  his  head  of 
400,000  rubles. 

The  Syndicalists 

The  position  of  the  Anarcho-Syndicalists  is  best  explained 
by  their  resolutions.  In  their  first  congress  after  the  revolution, 
on  August  25,  1918,  the  following  decisions  were  adopted  by  the 
Congress  of  the  Confederation  of  the  All-Russian  Anarcho-Syndi- 
calists : 

1.  To  battle  against  the  power  of  state  and  capitalism. 

2.  To  co-ordinate  according  to  federalist  principles  the  in- 

25 


dependent  Soviets  and  to  break  way  for  uniting  the  inde- 
pendent productive  organizations  of  workers  and  peas- 
ants. 

3.  To  recommend  to  the  workers  the  forming  of  free  Soviets 
and  to  combat  the  institutions  of  the  Councils  of  Commis- 
sars of  the  People,  as  this  is  an  organization  that  is  in- 
jurious to  the  workers. 

4.  To  dissolve  the  military  armies  and  arm  the  workers 
and  the  peasants ;  at  the  same  time  making  clear  to  them 
the  absurdity  of  the  idea  of  a  "socialist  vaterland";  for 
the  workers  and  the  peasants  can  only  have  the  world  for 
their  country. 

5.  To  battle  against  the  counter-revolutionary  CzeckO'-Slov- 
aks  and  all  other  attempts  of  the  imperialists  in  the  most 
forcible  way,  not  forgetting,  however,  that  the  extremely 
revolutionary  bolshevik  party  has  become  stationary  and 
reactionary. 

6.  To  transfer  the  distribution  of  the  food  stuffs  and  other 
necessities  into  the  hands   of  the   organizations  of  the 
workers   and   peasants   directly   and  to   discontinue   the 
armed   excursions   into   the   country,   for  through   these 
measures  the  farmers  become  the  enemies  of  the  work- 
ers, the  solidarity  between  workers  and  peasants  weak- 
ens, and  the  revolutionary  front  is  played  into  the  hands 
of  the  counter-revolutionists. 

But  no  hard  and  fast  program  has  been  put  up  by  the 
anarcho-syndicalists.  In  order  to  get  a  clear  understanding  of 
their  standpoint  one  must  turn  to  the  resolutions  in  their  con- 
gresses and  their  publications.  For  this  reason  I  have  asked  one 
of  the  most  notable  anarcho-syndicalists  of  Moscow,  A.  Shapiro, 
for  an  explanation  of  his  standpoint  and  here  I  will  give  the  most 
important  points: 

1.  Fundamental  rule:  Outside  the  proletariat,  the  policy  of 
the   present   state   of   society  is   anti-revolutionary   and 
counter-revolutionary.   Parliamentarism,   consequently,  is 
counter-revolutionary,  while  it  lies  outside  the  proletariat. 
The  policy  inside  the  ranks  of  the  proletariat  is  in  the 
most  intimate  manner  connected  with  the  economic  life. 
Revolutionary  economic  policy  and  revolutionary  proleta- 
rian policy  are  the  driving  forces  of  the  social  revolution. 

2.  If  a  revolution  is  to  assume  a  social  character  it  must 
be   laid  put   on   the   broadest   foundation,   that   is,    the 
annihilation  of  the  existing  state  machinery,  the  overthrow 
of  capitalism  and  all  its  resources ;  bourgeoisie,  liberalism, 
phrase   socialism,   middle   class;   the   organization    of   a 
new  society  must  be  worked  out  on  the  basis  of  economic 
independence  under  negation  and  abolition  of  the  wage 
system. 

26 


3.  The  dictatorship  of  the  proletariat,  so-called,  must  not  be 
anything  but  a  tool   in  the  hand   of  the   revolutionary 
people.    Characteristic   of   every   dictatorship    is   that   it 
hides  within  itself  the  tendency  to  autocracy,  in  so  far 
as  it  is  a  true  dictatorship.  A  dictatorship  of  the  prole- 
tariat  can,   consequently,    never   exist.    When   the   class 
struggle  comes  to  such  a  stage  that  the  working  class  is 
on  top  and  the  other  classes  underneath,  the  other  classes 
will  always  try  to  get  their  property  back.  It  will,  there- 
fore, be  a  small  part  of  the  proletariat  that  carries  the 
responsibility.    But    no    party    can    do    this,    neither    a 
communist,  nor  an  anarchist.  The  parties  have  the  know- 
ledge, the  theoretical  basis,  and  also  the  great  ideals,  but 
they  have  not  the  spirit  of  the  transition.  A  party  must 
with  necessity  always  be  dogmatic. 

4.  A  social  revolution  is  an  economic  revolution.  The  annihi- 
lation of  capitalism,  the  control  of  all  the  industries  and 
of  the  economic  life  through  the  workers.   The  enemy 
class  cares  little  about  the  form  of  the  state,  it  cares  for 
capitalism,  the  economic  system,  the  factories,  etc.  On 
this  ground  the  most  natural  and  best  qualified  carrier 
of  the  social  revolution  is  the  revolutionary  labor  organ- 
izations, the  unions.     Without  the  participation  of  these 
no  social  revolution  can  be  successful. 

5.  On  this  ground  one  could,  at  most,  speak  of  the  dictator- 
ship of  the  revolutionary  labor  organizations  inside  the 
proletariat.  The  deeper  the  revolutionary  political  parties 
dive  down  into  the  revolutionary  proletarian  mass,  the 
shorter  will  be  the  period  of  transition. 

6.  It  is  not  in  the  first  place  a  question  of  the  dictatorship 
of  the  proletariat,  but  of  the  building  of  a  body  which  is 
created  by  the  proletariat  for  the  maintenance  of  the 
social  gains  of  the  revolution.  The  dictatorship  of  one 
party  over  the  proletariat  leads  to  a  soul-less  mechanism, 
being  that  the  party  recognizes  the  principles  of  discipline 
and  not  the  tactics  of  true  life. 

7.  Dogmatic,  mechanical  party  dictatorship  leads  to  dogma- 
tic, mechanical  centralization,  as  a  party  is  not  able  to 
control  the  economic  life  of  a  country  in  any  other  man- 
ner.   Dogmatic    and    mechanical    centralism    kills    every 
initiative   and   destroys   more   than   it   builds   up.    It   is 
characterized  by  destruction  and  not  by  construction. 

8.  Axiom:  In  building  a  house  one  first  lays  the  foundation 
and  the  roof  comes  last!  In  Russia  it  was  the  opposite 
way.    The    central    decides   what   there    is    to    do.    The 
structure  falls  to  pieces  halfway  up  because  there  is  no 
responsive   action   from  below.    The   Industrial   Councils 
must  not  be  tools  in  the  hands  of  a  central  body,  they 

27 


must  be  the  initiators,  and  their  activity  should  only  be 
regulated  by  the  central  body. 

9.  The  Soviets  must  not  be  tools  in  the  hands  of  a  centralist 
body  but  the  real  source  of  life  in  their  field  of  activity. 
Russia  teaches  us  through  dearly  bought  experience  that 
our  motto  must  be  "from  the  bottom  to  the  top".  Central- 
ist dictatorship  is  not  necessary,  and  least  of  all  for  all 
branches  of  life.    Every  branch  should  itself  decide  what 
is  to  be  centralized. 

10.  Political  and  economic  activity  must  be  melted  together 
into  one.  When  political  and  economic  problems  go  hand 
in  hand,  they  become  social  problems.  Economics  is  the 
organization  of  the  conditions  of  life.  Social  politics  is 
the  relations  between  man  and  man  in  all  the  conditions 
of  life. 

The  anarcho-syndicalists  are  also  for  the  Soviets  but  against 
the  Soviets  of  political  parties.  From  their  resolutions  on  Soviets 
one  can  learn  the  difference  between  them  and  the  bolsheviks 
in  this  respect.  Among  other  things  they  contain: 

"In  consideration  of  the  role  which  the  Soviets  play  in  the 
struggle  against  counter-revolution,  we  have  to  note  the  fol- 
lowing : 

1.  That  the  dissatisfaction  of  the  workers  with  the  bolshevik 
tactics  in  regard  to  Soviets  and  other  organizations  is 
on  the  increase. 

2.  That  the  dictatorship  of  the  bolsheviks  over  the  Soviets 
and  other  organizations  of  labor  is  pulling  the  workers 
over  on  the  side  of  the  Constituent  Assembly. 

3.  That  it  is  necessary  for  the  working  masses  to  have  a 
clear  understanding  of  the  Soviets  to  carry  on  a  success- 
ful revolutionary  struggle. 

"The  anarcho-syndicalists  declare  themselves  for  the  Sov- 
iets, the  purpose  of  which  is  to  destroy  the  present  centralist 
form  of  the  state.  We  reject,  on  the  contrary,  the  Soviets  of 
the  people's  commissars,  as  these  are  in  contradiction  of  the 
essence  of  the  Soviets  and  paralyze  the  workers  in  the  true 
Soviets  of  the  workers  and  peasants. 

"We  are  "for  the  Soviets  of  the  active  population  who  are 
elected  under  such  conditions  that  the  workers  from  the  fac- 
tories and  the  peasants  from  the  village  are  directly  repre- 
sented and  that  the  delegates  are  no  party  politicians,  who 
cause  the  soviet  meetings  to  be  degraded  into  talking  orgies. 

"We  are  for  free  Soviets,  who  make  their  decisions  only 
in  accordance  with  the  wishes  of  the  electorate.  Hence,  the 
congress  decides  that  all  anarcho-syndicalist  fellow  workers 

28 


have  to  take  part  in  the  provincial  Soviets  in  which  the  bol- 
shevik party  is  not  yet  the  ruling  power,  and  where  it  is  still 
possible  to  act  in  freedom." 

Besides  these  anarcho-syndicalists  there  are  also  the 
Anarchist-Universalists  and  the  Pan- Anarchists,  who  have  come 
into  development  first  after  the  revolution.  These  two  tendencies 
are  represented  by  the  brothers  Gordin.  These  tendencies  are- 
still  new  and  unripe,  and  it  would  be  too  early  to  describe  these 
ideas  in  this  connection. 


The  "Nabat"  Anarchists 

Besides  those  already  mentioned  there  is  in  Ukraine  a  special 
anarchist  movement,  which  has  come  into  existence  since  the 
revolution:  The  Nabat  Federation.  "Nabat"  means  alarm  or 
trumpet  blast.  In  their  last  conference,  which  took  place  in 
Charkov  in  the  beginning  of  September,  1920,  they  formulated 
their  standpoint  as  follows: 

1.  The  statement  of  anarchist  deserters  that  the  Russian 
revolution  has   corroborated   the  weakness   of   anarchist 
theories,    is    completely    without    foundation.      On    the 
contrary,  the  fundamental  principles  of  anarchist  doctrine 
remain  unshaken  and  are  being  confirmed  through  the 
test  they  have  gone  through  in  the  Russian  revolution. 
The  experiences  confirm  us  in  this  that  we  remain  strong- 
ly opposed  to  any  form  of  power  and  to  capitalism. 

2.  The  anarchists  have  never  denied  that  between  the  first 
days  of  the  revolution  in  the  anarchist  sense  and  the 
final  purpose  of  anarchism,  or  the  anarchist  commune,  is 
a  period  of  time  during  which  the  rest  of  the  old  servitude 
slowly  disappears  and  the  new  forms  of  a  new  society 
gropingly  struggle  into  life.  These  periods,  full  of  faults 
and  errors  and  uninterrupted  efforts  towards  perfection, 
can  be  given  different  names:  the  period  of  gathering 
experiences    in    living   without   masters,    the   period    of 
deepening  the  social  revolution,  or  the  first  step  to  the 
anarchist  commune.  One  may  also  call  it  the  period  of 
transition,  in  order  to  denote  the  characteristic  features 
which  lead  from  the  imperfect  to  the  perfect  form  of 
social  life.  We  prefer,  though,  not  to  use  this  demarcation, 
because  it  has  already  acquired  a  distinct  meaning  in 
the  socialist  movement  of  the  last  50  years.  With  the 
term     "period    of    transition"     is    connected    something 
statistical  and  stiff.  The  expression  "period  of  transition" 
in  the  program  of  international  social-democracy  Is  so 
penetrated   by  the   histpric-marxian   spirit   of   slowness 
and    historically    conditioned    predestination    that    it    is 
unacceptable  to  us  anarchists. 

29 


3.  We  are  not  of  the  opinion  that  the  anarchist-communist 
system   must   be   preceded   by   a   syndicalist   step,   as   a 
period  of  transition  from  state  to-  anti-state  anarchist- 
communism.  In  the  theory  of  the  syndicalist  order,  which 
shall  come  in  the  place  of  the  Soviets,  is  plainly  discerni- 
ble the  influence  of  the  orthodox,  Marxist  theory  of  the 
stepping  stones  which  according  to  the  relentless  iron 
laws  of  social  development  must  follow  upon  one  another. 

4.  We  also  reject  the  use  of  the  expression  ' 'dictatorship 
of   labor,"    in    spite   of   the   efforts    of    some    comrades 
who    advise    us    to    accept    it.     This    '  'dictatorship    of 
labor"    means   nothing   else   than   the   widening   of   the 
formula  "dictatorship  of  the  proletariat",  which  is  now 
so  conspicuously  gone  into  bankruptcy.  It  must,  finally, 
unavoidably   lead   to   the    dictatorship    over   the    masses 
of  a  part  of  the  proletariat,  the  party,  the  officials  and 
some   leaders.    It   is   impossible   to   co-ordinate   anarchy 
with  any  kind  of  dictatorship,  even  with  a  dictatorship  of 
the  class-conscious  workers  over  the  others,  even  if  it 
were  in  the  interest  of  the  others!  We  are  agreed  that 
the  period  of  deepening  of  the  social  revolution  may  be 
designated    as    the    gathering    of    anarchist    experiences 
or,  if  one  so  desires  even  the  dictatorship  of  labor,  on  the 
ground  that  in  this  period  the  interests  of  the  workers 
will   stand   higher  than   the   interests   of  the   parasites. 
One  could  just  as  well  call  these  periods  "the  period  of 
the     dictatorship     of     consumption",     "dictatorship     of 
justice",  "dictatorship  of  agreement"  or  by  some  other 
equally  foolish  name.  We  are  compelled  to  exclude  the 
contents  of  the  word  "dictatorship".  With  the  idea  of 
dictatorship   is   connected   the   idea   of   Ludendorff   and 
Rennenkampf,   the   idea   of   unbridled   brutal   force   and 
government  power.  The  introduction  of  the  idea  of  the 
dictatorship  into  the  anarchist  program  would  cause  an 
unpardonable  confusion  in  the  minds. 

5.  The  revolution  that  anarchism  strives  for,  the  revolution 
in  which  the  parole  of  no  rulership  and  of  communism 
determines  the  course  of  events,  finds  many  obstacles  to 
its  development.  The  strength  of  the  active  resistance  on 
the  part  of  those  who  are  interested  in  the  maintenance 
of  capitalism  and  power,  the  inertia  and  the  ignorance 
of  the  broad  masses  of  the  workers,  can  create  conditions 
under  which  the  rising  anarchist  commune  will  be  driven 
far  from  their  ideal.  To  concretely  fix  the  eventual  social 
forms  of  the  future  is  impossible  for  the  moment,  because 
we  cannot  foresee  the  quantitative  and  qualitative  contents 
of  the  forces  which  determine  the  reality  of  the  future. 
For  this  reason  we  consider  it  useless  to  elaborate   a 
program  which  should  be  applied  to  something  that  we 
do  not  know.  We  do  not  come  forward  with  any  minimum 

30 


program  but  step  upon  the  ground  of  present  events  with 
full  rights  and  full  conviction  before  the  working  masses, 
in  order  to  show  them  the  ideals  of  anarchism  and 
communism  in  their  purity". 

These  anarchists  are  also  strong  opponents  of  the  Bolsheviks 
and  the  present  soviet  government  and  not  only  declare  that 
the  bolsheviks  have  ceased  to  be  revolutionary  but  stamp  them- 
openly  as  counter-revolutionary  and  reactionary.  The  "Nabats" 
are  not  identical  with  the  Machno  movement;  they  have,  on  the 
contrary,  in  another  resolution  taken  quite  strong  exceptions 
to  Machno  and  see  in  him  only  a  revolutionary  but  not  an 
anarchist.  They  are  also  vigorously  fought  and  persecuted  by 
the  bolsheviks,  recommend  illegal  work,  and  many  are  in  prison. 


31 


The  Land 


THE  abolition  of  private  property  in  land  is  perhaps  the  deepest 
change  which  the  Russian  revolution  has  brought  into  the 
social  life  of  our  private  capitalist  age.  It  was  this  that  gave 
the  Russian  revolution  the  character  of  a  social,  or  an  economic, 
revolution.  The  German  revolution  has  not  shaken  the  founda- 
tion of  the  social  order  of  private  capitalism  and  for  that  reason 
did  not  go  beyond  the  boundaries  of  a  political  revolution. 

Now  the  Russian  revolution  has  shown  us  that,  on  account 
of  the  poor  knowledge  of  the  Russian  workers  on  the  technical 
field,  the  expectations  of  the  socialists  of  all  shades  that  private 
property  could  be  abolished  have  not  been  fulfilled.  It  has  also 
shown  that  for  economic  equality,  such  as  communism  pre- 
supposes, is  further  required  the  elimination  of  the  organized 
power  of  the  capitalists  and  the  taking  over  of  all  these  functions 
through  the  proletariat  itself.  This,  however,  cannot  happen  in  a 
revolution  of  one  or  two  years  but  requires  a  period  of  time, 
the  length  of  which  depends  upon  the  development  and  the 
ability  of  the  proletariat  of  the  country.  But  the  first  and 
principal  step  has  been  taken  by  the  Russian  revolution.  The 
land  no  longer  belongs  to  the  large  land  owners.  In  an  agrarian 
country  like  Russia,  the  land  question  is  the  most  important  one. 
We  will  therefore  start  with  this  question. 

The  taking  away  of  the  land  from  the  owners  of  great 
estates  was  such  an  elementary  peasant  demand,  that  it  did  not 
require  any  socialist  theories  to  induce  them  to  it.  On  the 
contrary,  the  peasants  were  glued  to  the  land.  Frequently  they 
did  not  wait  for  the  law,  which  was  to  transfer  to  them  the 
possessions  of  the  large  land  owners;  they  confiscated  it  them- 
selves. Already  during  the  Kerensky  regime  the  peasants  started 
with  this  confiscation. 

In  Russia,  before  the  revolution,  the  land  tenure  was  different 
from  land  tenure  in  Germany.  The  peasants  still  had  to  a  great 
extent  remains  of  the  old  Mir  organization.  They  still  had  common 
pastures  and  similar  common  economic  interests.  Part  of  them 
also  had  their  own  land,  but  had  to  pay  such  great  taxes  to  the 
Czarist  state,  as  well  as  rent  to  the  estate  owner,  that  they, 
in  spite  of  it,  lived  in  very  poor  circumstances. 

Nevertheless,  76.3%  of  the  total  arable  land  belonged  to 
the  peasants  and  23.7%  to  the  estate  owners.  In  Ukraine  only 
55.5%  of  the  land  belonged  to  the  peasants  and  44.5%  to  the 

32 


estate  owners.  In  Ukraine  the  power  of  the  land  owners  was 
still  greater  than  in  the  rest  of  Russia. 

When  the  revolution  of  1917  broke  out,  the  peasants  took  the 
largest  part  of  the  land  of  the  estate  owners  and  divided  it 
between  themselves.  In  Russia  about  90%  of  the  land  fell  into 
the  hands  of  the  peasants  through  the  revolution  while  the  state 
obtained  only  10%.  Now  (1920)  96.7%  of  the  arable  land  belongs 
to  the  peasants  and  3.3%  to  the  government.  In  Ukraine  96.2%  - 
of  the  land  belongs  to  the  peasants  and  3.8%  to  the  government. 
The  land  which  the  state  took  over  was  changed  into  government 
estates.  Where  formerly  the  owners  of  an  estate  ruled,  there  rules 
now  the  state.  In  many  cases  the  present  form  is  more  agreeable  to 
the  peasants.  Frequently  the  fine  mansions  of  the  former  estate 
owner  are  in  the  possession  of  the  peasants,  who  have  fitted  them 
up  into  meeting  and  amusement  halls  as  well  as  schools.  But 
quite  often  these  gentry  mansions  are  now  put  at  the  disposition 
of  soviet  employees  who  spend  their  summer  vacations  there  or 
send  their  children  there.  Others  have  been  changed  into  homes 
for  children,  and  according  to  the  nature  of  the  new  arrangement 
the  peasants  are  satisfied  or  dissatisfied.  If  it  is  at  their  own 
or  their  children's  disposition,  then  they  feel  satisfied.  But  if 
the  "Sowbur",  as  the  peasants  call  the  soviet  employees,  have 
taken  possession,  then  the  peasants  are  dissatisfied. 

In  some  of  these  mansions  children's  colonies  have  been 
established,  as  already  stated.  In  the  gouvernement  of  Saratoff  a 
large  estate  was  nationalized.  In  the  large  buildings  and  gardens 
120  children  have  been  accommodated.  Nearly  all  are  war  orphans 
or  children  of  red  soldiers.  The  children  are  well  taken  care  of 
and  are  given  schooling  which  according  to  Russian  standards 
is  good  but,  compared  to  German  standards,  deficient. 

The  form  of  nationalizing  the  estates  is,  to  be  sure,  no  ideal 
of  socialism  or  communism.  Under  the  circumstances  (war,  the 
peasants'  faith  in  authority,  demoralization,  etc.),  however,  it 
would  have  been  more  difficult  to  drive  through  a  different  form. 
According  to  the  account  of  an  Armenian  secretary  of  the  or- 
ganization of  agricultural  workers  in  Saratoff  the  fact  of  the 
matter,  in  that  gouvernement,  was  that  the  agricultural  workers, 
after  driving  away  the  owners  of  the  estates,  took  no  pains 
to  maintain  agricultural  production.  They  sold  part  of  the 
mplements  or  took  them  along  for  their  own  personal  needs; 
"urthermore,  they  did  only  as  much  work  as  was  necessary  for 
;heir  own  maintenance,  so  that  the  state  saw  itself  compelled 
;o  take  the  estate  under  its  centralistic  management,  as  it  de- 
sired to  obtain  from  this  gouvernement,  which  belongs  to  the 
most  fertile  in  Russia,  the  grain  which  it  required  for  its  army 
and  for  the  cities.  Through  this  arrangement  the  agricultural 
workers  are  certainly  no  better  off  than  they  were  before.  The 
only  difference  is  that  formerly  they  were  exploited  by  the 
estate  owner  and  now  by  the  stafe.  Thus  the  Armenian  in 
question  ended  his  story.  I  may  remark  in  this  connection  that 


33 


this  man  belonged  to  no  party  and,  consequently,  did  not  look  at 
things  through  any  party  glasses. 

All  agricultural  workers  who  labor  on  these  soviet  estates 
are  organized  in  the  union  of  agricultural  ivorkers.  In  the  gouver- 
nement  Saratoff  this  union  has  7000  members,  among  them  70 
communists,  of  whom  50  are  state  employees,  leaving  20  com- 
munists among  the  real  agricultural  workers. 

Through  their  union  the  agricultural  workers  receive  their 
implements  and  other  use-objects  furnished  by  the  state,  when 
there  is  anything  to  be  had.  The  ivorkers  on  the  soviet  estates  tire 
the  only  country  laborers  or  peasants  who  are  industrially  organ- 
ized. All  other  peasants  are  unorganized. 

In  the  whole  gouvernement  of  Samara  there  are  120  soviet 
estates.  On  an  average  there  are  100-300  workers  on  each 
estate.  I  visited  estate  No.  6.  There,  100  workers  are  employed. 
Of  these  7  are  office  people.  The  estate  is  500  dessiatins  in  area, 
but  only  200  dessiatins  are  cultivated  (1  dessiatin  -  2.7  acres). 
The  permanent  workers  are  paid  2000  rubles  per  month.  With 
"bonus"  they  may  come  to  4000  rubles.  Day  laborers  receive 
100  rubles  per  day.  The  working  day  is  8  hours.  In  the  summer, 
however,  they  worked  2  hours  overtime,  for  which  they  were 
paid  3  hours  wages.  The  buying  power  of  money  in  this  neighbor- 
hood is:  a  pair  of  new  shoes  16,000  rubles;  a  pair  of  old  shoes 
8,000  rubles;  an  earthenware  teacup  with  saucer  750  rubles. 

The  Economic  Position  of  the  Peasants 

The  land  is  not  to  be  sold,  but  under  the  formula:  each  one 
receives  only  as  much  land  as  he  can  cultivate,  shuffling  can 
take  place.  Thus:  in  the  district  of  Seelman  in  the  German  Volga 
colony,  the  poor  peasants  give  one  dessiatin  of  land  for  6  Ibs. 
of  butter  and  10  eggs.  They  need  food  stuffs.  Land  they  can 
always  get  again,  if  they  only  want  to  cultivate  it. 

The  German  colonies  on  the  Volga  have  existed  for  163  years. 
The  capital  is  Katrinenstadt,  but  is  now  re-baptized  to  Marxstadt. 
The  second,  i.  e.,  the  soviet  revolution  broke  out  there  3%  months 
later,  in  February  1918.  There  also  the  peasants  of  the  whole 
colony  took  the  land  from  the  large  land  owners  before  the 
decree  was  issued  which  adjudged  them  the  land.  Already  under 
Kerensky  they  took  the  land  unto  themselves. 

Besides  the  government  estates  there  are  two  other  forms 
of  possessing  and  working  the  land.  First,  there  is  the  personal 
ownership.  There  are  richer  peasants  and  there  are  poorer 
peasants,  exactly  as  in  Germany  there  are  smaller  and  bigger 
peasants  and  cottagers.  Second,  we  have  the  so-called  artels.  An 
artel  is  a  Russian  workers'  partnership.  In  this  case  it  means  a 
peasant  partnership,  mostly  inside  a  commune  or  a  village. 
There  is  still  a  third  collective  form  of  working  the  land.  In 
the  spring  and  the  fall  the  peasants  work  the  land  by  mutually 
assisting  one  another  with  plowing,  sowing  and  reaping. 

34 


The  bolshevik-communists  oppose  this  form  of  possessing  and 
working  the  soil.  In  their  VIII.  party  convention  during  the 
past  year  they  have  adopted  a  program  in  which  they  specify 
their  position  on  the  peasant  question,  as  follows : 

"Considering  that  small  peasant  husbandry  will  continue  to 
exist  for  a  long  time,  the  Communist  Party  of  Russia  is  trying 
out  a  series  of  endeavors  which  have  for  their  purpose  to  increase 
the  productivity  of  peasant  labor.  To  such  measures  belong  the 
regulation  of  the  cultivation  of  the  peasant's  soil  (discontinuance 
of  the  three-fallow  system,  the  narrow  strip  field,  etc.)." 

Inequality  of  wealth  and  the  difference  in  the  standard  of 
living  is  still  by  no  means  evened  out  among  the  peasants.  They 
did  divide  the  land  between  themselves,  but,  according  to  my 
observations,  the  individualist  tendencies  of  the  peasants  were 
more  conspicuous  in  this  partitioning  of  the  land  than  the  com- 
munist tendencies.  In  the  village  of  Riliensko,  in  the  gouvernement 
of  Nischni-Novgorod,  there  was  government  land  when  the 
revolution  broke  out.  The  peasants  divided  this  land  so  that  each 
peasant  received  one  dessiatin.  This  proves  that  they  preferred 
personal  possession  to  communal  possession.  In  the  village  of 
Wuskristiansk  in  the  gouvernement  of  Samara  each  peasant 
has  now  more  land  than  before.  A  family  of  five  persons 
receives  4  dessiatins  of  land.  This  village  has  10,000  inhabitants. 
Among  these  are  250  communists,  while  the  social-revolutionaries 
are  a  little  more  numerous. 

That  there  are  still  rich  and  poor  peasants  in  the  country  is 
traceable  to  the  circumstance  that  the  richer  ones  have  rescued 
a  larger  stock  of  cattle  and  agricultural  implements  for  their 
own  part  from  pre-revolutionary  times.  The  "kulaks"  were  the 
rich  peasants  who  generally  had  a  store  in  the  village  and 
became  more  well-to-do  than  their  neighbors.  But  the  cattle  was 
not  confiscated.  Although  the  government  fixed  certain  rules 
about  the  permissible  maximum  and  requisitions  what  was  above 
the  maximum,  the  buying  and  selling  of  horses  and  cattle  con- 
tinues. A  peasant,  whom  I  know,  bought  a  horse  in  the  gouverne- 
ment of  Tambov  for  300,000  rubles,  while  in  the  gouvernement  of 
Moscow  it  would  have  cost  him  500,000  rubles.  In  the  above 
mentioned  village  of  Riliensko  the  peasants  are  allowed  to  keep 
from  3-5  sheep,  1-2  horses,  and  several  cows,  according  to  the 
size  of  the  family.  In  that  village  there  are  peasants  who  still 
have  five  cows. 

In  the  village  of  Novo  Djevitsch,  in  the  gouvernement  of 
Samara,  with  a  population  of  5,000,  there  are  7,000  head  of 
cattle  and  120  horses.  A  further  reason  why  some  peasants  are 
getting  along  better  than  others  is,  that  the  formerly  well-to-do 
still  have  satisfactory  agricultural  implements.  But  the  poor 
peasants,  who  have  nothing,  and  can  get  nothing  from  the  state, 
are  compelled  to  lean  on  the  richer  peasants.  The  rich  ones  lend 
them  their  implements,  but  require,  in  return,  labor  from  the 

35 


poorer  ones  or  compensation  in  some  other  manner.  In  this 
village  there  is  not  a  single  communist. 

The  social  inequality  among  the  peasants  which  is  created 
through  the  difference  in  wealth  is  still  further  accentuated 
through  the  lack  of  all  kinds  of  manufactured  articles  and 
industrial  products.  The-  misery  of  the  poor  peasants  is  on  the 
increase.  Plows  and  harrows,  if  they  happen  to  get  to  the 
village,  which  is  very  seldom,  are,  on  account  of  their  scarcity, 
not  distributed  to  the  peasants  personally  but  to  the  communal 
management.  If  it  now  happens  that  a  rascal  hides  under  the 
mask  of  a  communist  commissar,  he  keeps,  of  the  two  plows  con- 
signed to  the  village,  one  for  himself  and  the  other  he  gives  to  the 
whole  village.  Hardly  any  but  "communists"  were  made  com- 
missars. 

The  foregoing  is  an  actual  case  which  I  have  observed. 
It  took  place  in  the  village  of  Strokino  in  the  gouverne- 
ment  of  Moscow.  The  commissar  nuisance  causes  other  similar 
things  to  happen.  In  the  Marxstadt  district,  in  the  German 
Volga  colony,  there  are  commissars  who  requisition  the  cows  from 
the  peasants,  in  order  to  put  them  in  their  own  barn.  What 
the  government  can  give  the  peasant  of  manufactured  articles  is 
so  insignificant  that  it  in  no  manner  covers  even  the  most 
pressing  needs.  In  Novo  Djevitsch  each  peasant  obtained,  in 
three  months,  not  more  than  1  Ib.  (400  gram;  0.88  American 
Ib.)  of  salt.  Once  they  also  received  4  archins  of  cloth  (1  archin 
equal  to  .71  meter  or  2  1-3  ft.). 

The  Russian  peasant's  hunger  for  manufactured  articles  and 
industrial  products  is  insatiable.  Furthermore,  the  peasants  are 
compelled  to  turn  over  their  grain  to  the  state.  In  the  village  of 
Novo  Djevitsch  the  peasants  must  every  year  surrender  32  pud 
of  flour.  For  their  own  needs  they  can  keep  a  minimum  of  20 
pud  (1  pud  equals  34  Ibs.).  Besides,  the  peasants  must  pay  taxes. 
The  taxes  are,  generally,  very  low.  In  the  villages  the  taxes  are 
delivered  mostly  in  natural  products.  The  paper  of  the  communist 
party  among  the  Volga  Germans  writes  on  May  12,  1920,  about 
an  "Order  for  collection  of  the  natura  tax  in  the  Marxstadt  dis- 
trict":  "According  to  'decision  of  the  Marxstadt  District  Execu- 
tive Committee  the  natura  tax  for  the  year  1919  shall  be  collected 
from  the  villages  of  Strassenfeld,  Otrogovska,  Morgentau-Suje- 
dino  (and  19  others)." 

Besides  these  taxes  the  peasant  must  further  deliver  certain 
products.  In  number  83  of  the  same  paper  of  May  9  appears  a 
decree,  signed  by  Lenin,  as  president  of  the  Council  of  People's 
Commissars,  by  manager  Bonch-Brujevitch  and  secretary  Foti- 
jeva,  concerning  the  obligatory  delivery  of  butter  and  eggs.  Ar- 
ticle 3  of  this  decree  reads: 

"The  butter  quantum  prescribed  by  the  People's  Commissar 
of  the  Foodstuffs  Commissariat  for  the  year  of  1920  for  all  rayons 
of  European  Russia,  which  have  no  dairies,  amounts  on  an  aver- 

36 


age  to  three  Ibs.  of  melting-butter  for  each  cow.  The  total  of 
butter  delivered  and  placed  at  the  disposition  of  the  public  organs 
shall  be  paid  for  at  the  receiving  points  at  fixed  prices. 

Article  9  says:  "Careless  or  slow  delivery  of  the  prescribed 
duties  will  cause  the  state  to  take  recourse  to  the  strictest  meas- 
ures against  persons  guilty  of  such  neglect,  such  as  loss  of  right 
to  their  share  of  goods,  exacting  of  a  double  quantum  of  butter, 
requisition  of  their  cows,  in  order  to  turn  them  over  to  persons 
who  have  punctually  complied  with  their  duties,  arrest  of  the 
guilty  and  his  turning  over  to  the  local  courts." 

A  good  deal  has  been  said  about  the  bad  relationship  between 
the  soviet  government  and  the  peasants  as  a  result  of  the  requisi- 
tion policy  of  the  government.  I  have  also  heard  much,  very 
much,  of  it  in  Moscow.  Not  from  the  counter-revolutionists,  but 
partly  from  the  left  social-revolutionaries,  maximalists,  and  an- 
archists, and  partly  also  from  the  communists  themselves. 

But  I  shall  say  nothing  about  it,  except  what  I  myself  have 
learnt  from  direct  sources.  The  other  information,  perhaps,  can 
be  proven  by  others,  but  not  by  myself.  For  the  cases  that  I  state, 
I  have  no  other  proof  than  that  I  can  refer  to  the  fact  that  the 
peasants  themselves  have  told  it  to  me. 

For  the  cities  and  the  armies  the  state  needs  grain  more  than 
anything  else.  The  peasants  need  industrial  products,  textile 
goods,  manufactured  articles  and  hardware,  etc.  But  the  state 
cannot  supply  them  with  these,  because  it  has  nothing  or  next  to 
nothing  for  the  great  needs.  But  it  cannot  allow  the  soldiers  to 
go  hungry  on  that  account.  Hence  it  is  compelled  to  demand  the 
grain  from  the  peasants.  It  pays  them  a  maximum  price  for  it. 
This  maximum  price  of  the  government  is  in  proportion  to  the 
government's  maximum  price  for  industrial  products.  If  the  peas- 
ant could  obtain  the  needed  industrial  products  from  the  govern- 
ment he  would,  no  doubt,  give  his  grain  to  the  state  without  de- 
lay. But  such  is  not  the  case.  The  peasant  must  buy  the  indus- 
trial products  in  open  smuggle  trade  in  the  open  market  at  usury 
prices.  From  the  government  he  receives  100  rubles  for  one  pud 
of  flour.  But  for  a  roll  of  yarn  he  has  to  pay  3,000  to  5,000 
rubles  and  for  a  pound  of  soap  from  800  to  1,200  rubles.  In  order 
to  buy  what  he  necessarily  must  have,  he  is  compelled  to  also 
sell  his  grain  or  his  flour  at  usury  prices  in  the  market.  Then  he 
receives  20,000  rubles  for  a  pud  of  flour.  That  enables  him  to  cover 
his  most  pressing  needs. 

The  peasant  is,  consequently,  not  inclined  to  turn  over  his 
grain  to  the  state.  The  reason  for  this  we  have  just  seen.  They 
are  obvious.  But  as  the  state  must  have  the  flow  for  its  exist- 
ence, it  sends  soldiers  into  the  villages  who  requisition  the  grain 
from  the  peasants,  waiving  the  question  of  right  or  wrong.  The 
peasants  hide  their  grain.  If  it  is  found,  then  one  may  often  say: 
"May  God  have  mercy  on  them."  We  have  previously  quoted  a 
decree  of  Lenin's,  which  deals  with  punishment  of  the  peasants. 
Not  infrequently  it  happens  that  the  requisitioning  soldiers  take 

37 


more  rights  than  the  decrees  give  them.  It  is  also  easy  to  under- 
stand that  it  is  not  the  most  honorable  proletarians  which  form 
the  requisition  companies,  but  it  is  mostly  the  worst  elements, 
which  have  been  brutalized  by  the  war.  Finally,  the  peasants 
themselves  are  no  aestheticizing  philosophers  or  pacifists,  but 
naturally  coarse,  and  as  a  consequence  it  frequently  comes  to  a 
collision,  in  which  the  peasants  generally  come  out  second  best, 
as  they  are  either  unarmed  or  poorly  armed. 

Single  instances  may  be  picked  out  at  will.  Although  these 
do  not  give  a  whole  picture,  they  can  serve  as  illustrations  of  the 
events.  In  the  Seelman  district  of  the  German  Volga  colonies, 
2,000  soldiers  made  their  entry  into  the  villages  about  the  end 
of  May,  in  order  to  take  the  last  grain  supplies  away  before  the 
new  harvest.  In  the  village  of  Novo  Djevitch  there  were  peasant 
riots  three  times,  each  time  suppressed.  I  have  also  heard  of  sim- 
ilar cases  in  the  Ukraine. 

Another  cause  for  peasant  rebellions  or  discontent  is  the 
law  about  mobilization  of  labor  power.  By  means  of  this  law  the 
peasants  can  be  compelled  to  fell  trees.  Frequently  the  peasants 
do  not  want  to  go.  They  prefer  to  go  after  their  work  in  the 
fields.  I  came  to  a  village  in  which  a  government  deputation 
had  just  arrived,  in  order  to  make  the  peasants  start  felling  trees. 
The  women  were  also  required  to  go  along.  They  did  not  want 
to  do  it,  and  they  began  to  cry.  But  finally  they  went.  The  peas- 
ants were  willing  to  fell  trees  at  some  other  time,  they  said,  but 
not  then.  But  it  was  easy  to  understand  that  they  would  rather 
not  go  at  all.  And  why  should  they?  They  reaped  no  advantage 
from  so  doing.  The  pay  which  they  were  to  receive  for  it  is  so 
insignificant,  that  they  do  not  want  to  work  for  the  state. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  state  has  succeeded  in  considerably 
improving  the  fuel  situation  through  these  energetic,  frequently 
quite  draconic  measures.  In  the  cities  of  Moscow  and  Petrograd 
it  has  this  winter  (1920-1921)  been  a  good  deal  better  than  it 
was  last  year.  The  city  dwellers,  including  the  city  proletariat, 
are  the  ones  who  are  benefited  by  this,  and  not  only  the  bolshe- 
viks but  everybody  else  concedes  that  the  providing  of  fuel  now 
is  somewhat  improved.  Nevertheless,  there  are  many  non-bolshe- 
viks, such  as  mensheviks,  social-revolutionaries  and  even  anarch- 
ists who  reject  the  tactics  through  which  the  bolsheviks  have  ex- 
acted these  performances. 

The  precarious  position  of  the  cities  and  their  dependence 
upon  the  country  for  provisions  and,  partly,  for  fuel  leads  to 
opposition  between  city  and  country.  The  peasants  are  hostile  to 
the  cities.  But  above  everything  they  hate  the  requisitioning  sol- 
diers, and  they  are  no  friends  of  the  state,  as  they  get  nothing 
from  the  state,  or  as  good  as  nothing,  while  the  state  wants  to 
get  a  good  deal  from  them.  The  opposition,  and  in  a  certain 
sense,  the  hostility  between  the  peasants  and  the  state  took  ex- 
pression, from  the  side  of  the  peasants,  in  hostility  to  the  city. 
There  is  a  danger  lurking  in  this  fact,  which,  however,  will  be 

38 


removed  as  soon  as  the  state  (which  to  the  peasants  means  the 
city)  can  again  supply  them  with  industrial  products. 

Through  all  these  circumstances  and  through  the  distress  in 
which  the  peasant  finds  himself,  he  has  lost  his  inclination  to 
cultivate  the  soil.  The  peasants  no  longer  cultivate  the  land  as  in- 
tensively as  before.  The  productivity  has  diminished.  When  in 
Germany  it  is  said  in  influential  government  circles,  that  only 
work,  only  the  raising  of  the  intensity  of  labor  can  save  German 
economic  life,  it  is  very  true.  The  capitalists,  of  course,  mean  the 
labor  of  wage  slaves,  while  the  socialists,  who  can  also  accept 
this  formula,  mean  the  work  of  the  whole  population,  with  elin> 
ination  of  the  capitalist  coupon  clipper,  snobs  and  idlers.  But  this 
applies  in  still  greater  measure  to  Russia.  For,  Without  doubt, 
Russian  economic  life  is  a  hundred  times  more  disarranged  than 
German  economic  life.  Just  as  little  as  the  German  proletarians 
obey  their  government's  call  for  more  intensive  labor  but,  on  the 
contrary,  rather  decrease  the  intensity  where  possible,  so  the 
Russian  workers  also  do  not  think  of  any  increase  of  production. 
Like  the  German  proletarians  they  say  to  themselves :  "For  whom? 
The  fruits  of  this  do  not  go  to  me." 

Thus  it  may  be  recorded  that  the  cultivated  area  in  Russia 
has  considerably  decreased.  According  to  the  reports  of  the 
soviet  government  the  cultivated  area  in  the  gouvernement 
of  Charkov  has  gone  down  65%  in  the  year  1920,  in  the 
gouvernement  of  Jekaterinoslov  40%,  in  the  gouvernements 
of  Cherson,  Poltava  and  Odessa  15%.  But  it  is  to  be  noted 
that  in  the  gouvernements  of  Jekaterinodav  and  Poltava  large 
parts  have  been  covered  by  the  war  operations,  and  still  the  culti- 
vated area  has  not  decreased  as  much  as  in  the  Charkov  district, 
which,  since  Denikin  was  beaten,  has  been  free  from  every  kind 
of  invasion  and  from  armies.  These  figures  are  of  extra-ordinary 
importance.  Unfortunately,  it  has  not  been  possible  for  me  to  get 
figures  for  the  other  gouvernements,  particularly  from  Central 
Russia. 

The  decrease  in  the  cultivated  area  on  the  part  of  the  peas- 
ants corresponds  to  the  falling  off  in  the  productivity  of  the  in- 
dustrial workers  and  the  city  proletarians.  But,  while  in  regard 
to  the  proletarians  we  must  seek  the  principal  reason  in  poor 
nourishment  and  in  the  general  nervous  break-down  after  years 
of  war-like  efforts,  that  is,  in  unconscious  factors,  and  only  partly 
in  conscious  will,  springing  from  revolutionary  class  consciousness 
(with  the  Russian  proletarians  it  is  almost  exclusively  the  first 
named  causes),  we  must  seek  it  elsewhere  when  it  concerns  the 
peasants.  Only  to  a  small  extent  are  they  affected  by  break- 
down and  indifference  due  to  many  years  of  war.  The  principal 
reason  lies  in  the  simple  words:  We  have  nothing  to  gain  by  it. 

To  all  this  comes  another  circumstance :  The  shortage  of  seed 
drain.  In  many  villages  the  peasants  use  up  the  seed  grain  or 
tne  seed  potatoes  for  other  purposes.  Frequently  the  government 
was  compelled  to  requisition  the  seed  grain  of  the  peasants  for 
other  gouvernements. 


But  the  distribution  has  been  undertaken  by  means  of  the 
worst  sample  of  Russian  organization,  so  bad,  that  it  could  not 
bp  worse  even  under  czarism.  Russian  bureaucracy  is  a  chapter 
of  its  own,  but  the  distribution  of  the  seeds  interests  us  in  this 
connection.  The  bolshevik  paper  "The  Ural  Worker"  gives  the 
following  picture  of  the  conditions.  In  an  article  of  May  19, 
1920,  number  119,  the  paper  writes,  under  the  heading:  "It  is 
impossible  to  delay  any  longer" : 

"To  supply  the  need  of  seed  grain  of  the  farms  there  is 
needed  According  to  the  reports  of  the  district  committees, 
2,910,487  pud  of  grain  (1  pud  equals  34  Ibs.),  outside  of 
vegetable  seeds  and  seed  potatoes.  But  the  gouvernement  com- 
mittee has  delivered  only  26.25%  of  the  seeds,  that  is,  little 
more  than  one  quarter  of  the  quantity  needed.  Of  this  the 
district  Schadrinsky  has  received  9.5%,  the  district  Irbitsky 
and  Krasnoufimsky  17.5%,  but  the  district  Kamischlovsky 
51%.  How  can  such  an  unjust  and  unequal  distribution  of 
the  seed  be  explained?"  The  writer  of  the  article  seeks  the 
reason  in  the  incompetency  and  lack  of  good  will  of  the  per- 
sons on  the  distribution  committee. 

As  a  matter  of  fact  there  obtains  in  the  Food  Stuffs 
Committees  of  the  gouvernements  (these  committees  are  called 
"Gubprodkom")  a  terrible  bureaucratism,  which  in  the  most 
intimate  manner  connects  with  the  system  of  centralism. 

The  paper  further  relates  that  in  the  gouvernement  of 
Jekaterinburg  in  Ural  a  total  of  461,136  pud  of  seed  pota- 
toes were  required.  Up  to  May  9  there  was  available  only 
10,000  pud,  or  about  2.2%.  But  even  this  insufficient  quan- 
tity was  not  divided  in  a  regular  way,  but  it  was  all  sent, 
with  the  exception  of  2,600  pud,  to  four  districts,  while  six 
districts  received  nothing.  Of  the  remaining  2,600  pud  the 
consumers*  society  of  the  commune  took  1,000  pud  for  its 
own  part.  (Since  the  bolshevik  victory  the  consumers*  socie- 
ties in  Russia  have  been  made  state  organs.)  The  figures 
quoted  show  plainly  in  what  position  the  government  finds 
itself  when  it  comes  to  ability  to  deliver  and  distribute  seed 
grain,  particularly  seed  potatoes. 

"I  shall  not  look  for  the  causes  of  this  bankruptcy,  bu1 
must  point  out  that  the  'Gubprodkom'  in  its  present  composi- 
tion has  leaders  to  whom  momentary  effect  is  the  main  thing, 
instead  of  organizing  the  work  rationally.  The  measures 
adopted  by  the  leaders  of  the  'gubprodkom'  stand  far  be- 
hind the  real  needs  in  the  place  concerned." 

(Quoted  from  the  report  of  a  committee  of  the  Food  Stuffs 
Commissariat  before  the  council  of  the  first  labor  army,  of  May, 
1920,  No.  1743.) 

The  author  of  the  article  sought  a  way  out  of  the  dilemma  by 
allowing  the  collective  peasant  organizations,  the  partnerships 
and  the  communes,  as  well  as  other  organizations,  to  buy  the  seed 

40 


grain  and  the  vegetable  seeds  and  seed  potatoes  in  open  trade. 
He  refers  to  the  gouvernement  of  Petrograd,  where  this  remedy  was 
found.  In  the  gouvernement  of  Petrograd  permission  has  been 
given  to  the  communal  vegetable  gardens,  the  soviet  organiza- 
tions and  other  organizations  to  practice  free  buying  of  seeds,  and 
better  results  have  been  obtained.  More  than  10,000  dessiatins 
of  land  were  supplied  with  seed  grain. 

From  these  reports  it  is  evident  that  the  unsatisfactory  de- 
livery of  seeds  and  seed  grain  is  an  important  cause  of  the  un- 
satisfactory cultivation  of  the  soil. 

I  am  not  here  concerned  with  criticizing  Soviet  Russia;  that 
is  a  thing  which  we  in  the  present  period  must  leave  to  the  Rus- 
sian workers  themselves.  What  interests  me  here  is  to  depict  the 
economic  conditions  of  the  peasants.  That  this  condition  is  not 
brilliant  the  descriptions  given  have  proven.  The  Russian  peas- 
ants are  suffering  want,  dire  want,  but  less  for  ivant  of  food  than 
for  want  of  industrial  products.  If  the  Russian  revolution,  the 
party  ruling  at  present,  succeeds  in  appeasing  the  hunger  for  in- 
dustrial products,  then  the  revolution  will  develop  into  freer 
forms,  then  no  reaction  can  any  longer  interrupt  its  progress ;  but, 
if  not,  then  the  fate  of  the  revolution  is  in  the  dark. 

As  I  am  writing  down  my  experiences  not  that  they  may  mere- 
ly be  condemned  to  an  archive  existence  as  dead  matter,  nor  in 
order  to  give  the  counter-revolutionaries  water  on  their  mills,  nor 
in  order  to  call  on  the  German  workers  for  a  spiritless  and  ape- 
like imitation  of  the  Russian  bolshevik  and  revolutionary  policy, 
but  rather  have  been  inspired  with  the  sincere  desire  that  the 
revolutionary  workers  should  benefit  from  the  experiences  of  the 
Russian  revolution  and  learn  from  it,  I  cannot  abstain  from 
pointing  out  that  the  world's  hand  and  brain  workers,  as  well 
as  the  peasants,  must  guard  against  turning  over  the  organization 
of  distribution  to  a  soulless  and  lifeless  state  bureaucracy — even 
if  it  be  a  communist  bureaucracy.  Revolutionary  workers!  You 
see  from  the  examples  of  Russia  that  the  state  was  not  able  to 
get  the  seed  grain  and  the  vegetable  seeds  and  the  seed  potatoes 
to  the  peasants,  through  its  organs!  You  have  also  learnt  that 
the  peasants,  when  they  had  a  free  hand  to  supply  their  own  needs 
themselves,  as  happened  in  the  gouvernement  of  Petrograd,  solved 
these  problems  quicker,  easier  and  better.  May  this  be  an  ad- 
monition and  a  hint  fo>r  the  world's  workers  not  to  trust  too  much 
to  the  state  and  its  omnipotence.  Even  a  communist-proletarian 
state  is  no  exception  to  this;  yes,  in  such  a  state  it  might  be  still 
more  difficult,  because,  to  begin  with,  the  workers  are  not  trained 
and  accustomed  to  organizatory  state  work,  and  because  the  old 
bureaucrats  will  sabotage  as  far  as  possible.  This  is  also  what 
they  did  in  Russia.  Besides,  the  state  is  compelled,  in  all  urgent 
cases,  to  turn  the  matter  over  to  free  organizations  or  private 
persons,  who  are  then  better  able  than  the  state  to  find  the  right 
way  and  complete  the  organization.  With  this  we  will  not  say 
that  the  private  initiative  of  the  capitalist  ought  to  be  restored— 

41 


although  this  also  is  done  in  Russia,  inasmuch  as  more  important 
purveying  for  the  army  and  other  similarly  important  matters 
were  turned  over  to  private  parties ;  we  only  wish  to  point  out 
that  there  is  no  \more  incompetent  apparatus  for  organizing  the 
economic  life  than  the  state.  The  bolsheviks  may  try  to  main- 
tain as  often  as  they  please  that  it  was  not  possible  to  organize 
all  this  in  a  satisfactory  manner,  as  long  as  it  was  necessary  to 
concentrate  all  power  on  the  war,  but  that  now,  the  war  being 
over,  the  economic  side  of  reconstruction  can  begin.  The  fact  that 
during  the  war  time,  when  the  state  made  its  greatest  efforts  to 
solve  all  problems  quickly,  when  the  knife  was  on  its  throat  and 
it  did  not  shrink  from  any  measures,  it  was  not  able  to  solve  the 
problems  that  confronted  it,  but  placed  the  most  difficult  matters 
in  the  hands  of  free  organizations  or  even  individual  persons,  is 
a  striking  proof  of  the  incapacity  of  the  state,  for  when  it  cannot 
make  good  at  a  time  when  it  is  strongest,  when  idealism  is  in 
danger,  then  it  is  still  less  capable  of  doing  it  in  less  dangerous 
times. 

The  Political  Conditions  of  the  Peasants 

That  the  economic  life  is  of  great  significance  for  the 
political  form,  that  is  something  one  can  easily  admit  with- 
out being  a -Marxist.  Thus,  taking  possession  of  the  land  by 
the  peasants  is  in  more  than  one  respect  an  economic  and  a  pol- 
itical act  at  the  same  time.  The  new  form,  of  political  life,  the 
Soviets  (the  councils),  connects  in  the  most  intimate  manner  with 
the  economic  transformation.  In  many  places  the  peasants  di- 
vided the  property  of  the  landowner.  In  order  to  divide  this  in 
a  just  manner  between  themselves,  and  for  the  purpose  of  ar- 
ranging the  new  relationships  with  neighboring  villages  as  well 
as  its  relations  to  the  whole  country,  they  elected  councils.  Here 
we  already  have  the  roots  of  the  soviet  system.  The  building  of 
this  soviet  system  could,  naturally,  not  be  the  same  among  the 
peasants  as  with  the  city  proletariat.  The  peasants  could  not  elect 
their  Soviets  by  the  factory.  They  elected  them  by  the  communes 
or  by  the  districts.  They  did  not  elect  them  according  to  eco- 
nomic units  but  according  to  territorial  units.  The  state  soviet 
communes,  however,  also  elect  according  to  their  agricultural 
occupations. 

The  local  Soviets,  the  smaller  district  Soviets  and  the  gouverne- 
ment  Soviets  of  the  peasants  had,  and  have,  mostly  economic  func- 
tions, if  we  except  a  few  educational  and  school  questions.  It 
is  a  question  of  regulating  traffic,  roads,  transportation  to  con- 
nect with  the  cities  for  trade  purposes  or,  speaking  socialistically, 
for  exchange,  and  similar  things.  The  economic  and  political  life 
are  here  very  intimately  connected.  But  all  these  things  have 
nothing  to  do  with  party  politics.  Although  most  of  the  peasants 
belong  to  no  party,  they  still  have  elected  their  Soviets  according 
to  party.  This,  of  course,  was  done  in  party  interest,  not  in  the 

42 


interest  of  the  peasants;  but  that  springs  from  historic  reasons. 
Still,  the  peasants  frequently  elect  non-partisan  Soviets. 

Naturally,  all  the  parties  tried  their  luck  among  the  peasants 
in  the  beginning  of  the  revolution.  For  he  who  in  Russia  has  the 
peasants  behind  him  is  building  on  a  strong  power.  Thus  the  bol- 
sheviks gained  great  sympathies  among  the  peasants  when  Lenin 
made  the  peace  at  Brest-Litovsk.  Later  they  lost  these  sympa- 
thies again  by  sending  the  soldiers  into  the  villages  to  requisition 
grain. 

To-day  the  peasants  are  no  longer  so  much  interested  in  the 
parties  as  they  were  in  the  beginning  of  the  revolution.    They  are 
still  for  the  Soviets  and  will  probably  always  remain  in  favor  of 
them,  but  the  parties  are  not  of  such  a  stable  nature  as  the  soviet 
idea.    It  has  often  happened  that  the  peasants  have  showed  them- 
selves against  all  parties.    Socialism,  or  rather,  communist  hus- 
bandry and  mode  of  living,  does  not  strike  the  peasants  as  a 
party  matter.    For  that  reason  the  Soviets  are  not  identical  with 
communism,  as  many  workers  think.  Still,  libertarian  communism 
has  always  been  connected  with  a  kind  of  council  system.     For 
when  the  peasants  or  the  workers  in  a  place  manage  their  own 
affairs,  then  they  always  elect  their  councils,  or  Soviets,  which 
decide'  on  all  matters  that  cannot  be  decided  by  each  one  separ- 
ately.    At  the  present  time  there  are  in  Russia  many  peasants 
who  are  not  communists  but  who  take  a  stand  for  the  soviet 
system.    The  soviet  system  is  then  for  them  only  a  form  of  direct 
political  representation  with  elimination  of  all  interferences  from 
a  central  body  in  the  local  self-government.     But,  as  in  the  his- 
toric moment  of  the  outbreak  of  the  revolution  the  parties  still 
exerted  some  power  of  attraction  over  the  peasants,  we  have  to 
note  that  one  party  finally  succeeded  to  gain  and  assert  influence 
and  power  in  the  councils.    But  to  the  extent  that  the  party  sue- 
ceeded  in  gaining  poiver  and  control  in  the  Soviets,  to  that  extent 
the  free  Soviets  lost  their  power.    Of  course,  the  larger  the  party 
is,  the  less  this  loss  of  freedom  is  felt.     If  most  of  the  Soviets 
consist  of  representatives  elected  as  party  members,  then  the 
party  members   feel   correspondingly  free,   provided  they  agree 
with  the  tactics  and  politics  of  the  party.    But  it  often  happens 
that  the  peasants  have  not  put  any  party  lists  in  the  field  for  the 
soviet  elections.     Particularly  in  the  Ukraine  have  I  found  in- 
stances of  this.  I  have  been  present  at  several  meetings  of  the 
executive  committee  of  the  district  Soviets  and  gouvernement  Sov- 
iets, as  well  ,as  once  in  the  congress  of  all  the  gouvernement  Soviets 
in  Samara.    The  deliberations  turned  upon  the  economic  situation. 
But  I  noticed  that  the  economic  policy  was  determined  in  accord- 
ance with  the  program  of  the  bolshevik  party.  The  higher  author- 
ities, such  as  the  Council  of  People's  Commissars,  issue  decrees 
through  the  different  People's  Commissariats  and  their  depart- 
ment for  agriculture,  for  education,  for  traffic  and  transporta- 
tion, and  the  Soviets  are  the  organs  which  have  to  carry  out  these 
decrees  or  see  to  it  that  they  are  carried  out. 

43 


At  a  meeting  of  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  District  Sov- 
iet in  the  province  of  Charkov  on  Sept.  13,  1920,  there  were  two 
matters  under  discussion:  (1)  The  provisioning  of  the  army, 
and  (2)  The  procuring  of  fire  wood.  According  to  the  decrees 
of  the  Council  of  People's  Commissars,  each  precinct  had  to 
deliver  a  certain  quantity  of  wood  and  provisions,  according  to  its 
possibilities.  A  representative  reported  how  the  peasants  in  one 
precinct  refused  to  help  out  with  the  wood  cutting  because  they 
received  no  pay.  He  thought  it  would  be  necessary  to,  at  least, 
give  the  peasants  promises  of  delivery  of  goods  to  them,  after  which 
they  would  probably  help  out.  Without  such  help  of  the  peasants 
it  would  be  impossible  to  obtain  the  required  quantity  of  wood. 
Another  representative  spoke  of  the  fact  that  there  were  bands 
of  men  in  the  woods  which  made  the  wood  cutting  difficult  for 
the  peasants.  It  would  be  necessary  to  induce  the  peasants  to 
drive  these  bands  away,  but  this  the  peasants  do  not  want  to  do. 
(The  reason  why  the  peasants  did  not  want  to  do  this  was  that 
many  of  them  belonged  to  these  "bands"  themselves.)  There  was 
also  a  speech  by  a  delegate  from  the  department  for  care  of  the 
wounded  soldiers  from  the  Polish  and  the  Wrangel  fronts.  He 
described  the  misery  of  the  wounded  in  lurid  colors,  in  order  to 
prevail  upon  the  representatives  of  the  Executive  Committee  of 
the  Soviets  to  send  them  the  means  of  life  on  a  greater  scale  than 
before. 

From  these  accounts  it  is  evident  that  the  business  and  the 
political  functions  of  the  Soviets  are  limited  to  a  certain  circum- 
scribed field  outside  of  which  it  cannot  go.  For  the  biggest  part  it 
is  no  longdr  an  organization  working  from  the  bottom  to  the 
top,  but,  on  the  contrary,  from  the  top  to  the  bottom',  and  it 
could  hardly  be  otherwise  for  a  state  with  a  war-time  administra- 
tion of  its  national  husbandry. 

For  the  peasants  this  administration  from  above  frequently 
proves  oppressive  and  disagreeable,  not  to  use  a  more  powerful 
term.  This  comes  plainly  to  expression  in  the  soviet  com- 
mune, where  the  administration  in  many  cases  is  not  in  the  hands 
of  a  locally  elected  soviet  or  manager,  but  in  the  hands  of  a 
person  selected  by  a  Supreme  Council  of  National  Economy,  or 
an  agricultural  commissariat.  The  peasants  thus  feel  anything 
but  free.  To  begin  with,  the  estate  is  in  the  hands  of  the  state, 
as  we  have  already  shown.  The  peasants  do  not  feel  as  owners 
of  the  soil  they  cultivate.  In  the  second  place,  the  appointed 
manager  frequently  carries  on  a  regime  comparable  to  that  of 
the  old  land  owner.  Thus  we  read  in  the  "Pravda,"  a  well  known 
bolshevik  paper,  of  July  1,  1919,  No.  141: 

"The  manager  ("Sovchos")  is  often  like  the  dog  in  the 
hay  who  does  not  eat  it  himself  but  won't  let  anybody  else 
eat  it,  either.  The  whole  establishment  is  in  a  state  of  collapse. 
(It  refers  to  a  soviet  establishment  in  the  gouvernement 
Tver.)  The  manager,  an  ex-land-owner,  is  a  dirty,  run-down 
old  man  of  melancholy  aspect,  who  seems  already  to  belong 

44 


to  another  world.  The  peasants  feel  only  hatred  towards 
such  a  "sovchos"  or  "spez"  (specialist).  In  every  gouverne- 
ment  or  local  district  one  may  hear  angry  attacks  on  such 
management.  The  result  of  such  an  agrarian  policy  is  an  ag- 
gravation of  the  strained  relations  between  the  peasants  and 
the  soviet  power." 

It  is  clear  that  when  the  "Pravda"  writes  this  it  also -has 
reason  for  so  doing,  as  it  is  calling  the  attention  of  the  govern- 
ment to  these  conditions.  The  government  has,  of  course,  no  in- 
terest in  aggravating  such  conditions,  but,  on  the  contrary,  in  re- 
moving them.  But  it  appears  from  the  numerous  attempts  that 
it  is  very  difficult  And  we  must  not  blame  it  on  lack  of  good  will 
on  the  part  of  the  government  or  gouvernements,  for  the  leaders  of 
the  soviet  republic  do  not  lack  good  will,  but  the  cause  of  it  is 
the  system  of  nationalization,  the  system  of  indirect  relations  of 
the  peasants  to  the  soil  and  to  the  management  in  working  the 
soil. 

The  ideal  of  the  peasants  is  to  feel  free  and  to  work  on  free 
soil.  But  that  is  also  the  ideal  of  all  socialists.  Under  the  condi- 
tions described,  the  Russian  revolution  has  not  yet  come  to  a  reali- 
zation of  this  ideal,  as  the  quoted  lines  from  the  "Pravda"  show. 
It  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  Russian  revolutionists  make  the 
question  whether  they  would  not  have  come  nearer  to  these  ideals 
if  different  tactics  had  been  adopted.  The  social-revolutionaries 
of  the  left,  the  anarchists,  the  anarcho-syndicalists,  the  maximal- 
ists, as  well  as  part  of  the  Ukrainian  communists  answer  "Yes" 
to  this  question.  Above  everything  they  are  against  the  requisi- 
tion policy  o/  the  government  and,  according  to  their  agrarian 
program,  against  the  nationalization  of  the  land,  for  a  more  com- 
munal form,  for  a  form  that  ivould  give  the  peasants  more1  inde- 
pendence, for  such  a  form  of  possession  and  cultivation  of  the 
soil  as  would  give  the  peasants  the  management,  through  Soviets 
elected  by  themselves. 

Against  this  the  bolsheviks  declare  that  they  also  are  for 
these  principles,  but  that  the  realization  of  them  is  so  difficult— 
the  peasants  delivered  nothing  to  the  armies  of  the  government 
and  the  cities — that  it  became  necessary  to  resort  to  stern  meas- 
ures. The  decree  policy  of  the  bolsheviks  is  in  their  opinion 
correct.  Lenin  says  on  the  question,  in  a  speech  on  "the  position 
of  the  bolsheviks  to  the  middle  peasantry,"  made  in  Moscow  in 
March,  1919: 

"Fundamentally  our  decrees  on  agricultural  economy  are 
correct.  We  have  not  the  least  occasion  to  disown  or  deplore 
any  of  them.  But  if  these  decrees  in  themselves  are  cor- 
rect, then  it  is  absolutely  false  to  force  them  upon  the  peas- 
ants with  violence.  In  not  a  single  decree  is  there  any 
question  of  this.  They  are  conceived  as  guides,  as  -a  sum- 
mons to  political  activities." 

But  these  words  of  Lenin  could  not  prevent  that  the  prac- 
tical enforcement  of  these  decrees  meant  the  use  of  force  against 
the  peasants.  That  is  what  constitutes  the  difference  between 

45 


fine-polished  theories  and  rough  practice.  Although  the  bolshe- 
viks give  the  peasant  question  the  greatest  attention,  well  know- 
ing that  it  is  .a  question  of  life  and  death  for  them,  still  the  peas- 
ants repudiate  with  thanks  the  attention  of  the  government.  It 
cannot  be  denied  that  Lenin  is  right  when  he  says  that  these  de- 
crees are  fundamentally  right.  He  should  have  added  for  us,  but 
not  for  the  peasants.  The  decree  policy  is  in  the  interest  of  the 
state.  It  is,  consequently,  only  the  above  mentioned  anti-state 
parties  who  reject  the  decree  policy  in  principle.  But  as  the 
realization  of  socialism,  communism  and  liberty  is  possible  only 
through  the  abolition  of  the  state,  a  change  or  improvement  in 
the  position  of  the  peasants  which  would  make  them  more  satis- 
fied, is  attainable  only  in  the  anti-state  direction.  For  these  ideals 
cannot  be  banished  from  the  efforts  and  the  wishes  of  the  people, 
not  even  by  means  of  the  article  by  Trotzky  and  Radek  in  which 
they  try  to  inform  the  workers  and  the  peasants  that  free  labor 
is  a  bourgeois  superstition.  But  the  anti-state  movement  is  char- 
acterized by  the  cancelling  of  all  decrees.  Along  that  road  the 
soviet  government  is  being  pressed  through  the  striving  of  the 
peasants  for  self-government  and  independence.  These  endeav- 
ors are  also  in  harmony  with  the  anti-state  tendencies  of  the 
maximalists,  the  anarcho-syndicalists  and  also  the  social -revolu- 
tionaries of  the  left.  //  the  endeavors  and  movements  of  the  peas- 
sants  and  the  tendencies  of  the  anti-state  socialists  get  a  better 
footing  and  finally  press  fonvard  to  victory,  then  first  will  ^  the 
program  of  the  social  revolution  have  a  chance  of  being  realized. 
The  peasants  do  not  desire  any  state  communism  in  which  every- 
thing is  accomplished  by  order  from  the  top,  they  want  com- 
mimal  self-government,  communalism,  if  you  so  want  to  call  it, 
which  means  freedom  to  regulate  their  own  affairs  after  their  own 
desires  and  wishes.  But  this  liberty  they  do  not  have  under 
bolshevism,  in  spite  of  all  well-meaning  decrees.  As  long  as 
this  most  important  of  questions,  the  peasant  question,  is  not 
solved  to  the  satisfaction  o/  the  peasants,  we  cannot  consider 
even  the  first  stage  of  the  social  revolution  completed.  First  when 
this  happens,  the  foundation  is  created  for  a  peaceful  development 
upward  of  social  life.  Under  the  present  conditions,  created  by 
the  bolsheviks,  the  suppression  of  one  layer  of  the  people,  or  class, 
by  the  other  is  still  a  living  fact,  carrying  with  it  armed,  violent 
uprisings.  Under  the  rule  of  the  bolsheviks  the  Russian  revolu- 
tion has  not  solved  the  peasant  question  but  only  complicated  i1 
still  more.  But  that  should  not  cause  us  to  be  astonished,  for  th< 
bolshevik  party  is  a  Marxist,  a  city-proletarian  party,  and  it  i; 
natural  that  the  conquest  of  the  state  through  a  part  of  the  citj 
proletariat — in  which  the  peasants  have  no  part — cannot  brin^ 
them  liberation.  The  emancipation  of  the  peasants  can  be  ac- 
complished only  by  the  peasants  themselves.  Without  doubt  the 
social-revolutionaries  of  the  left  or  the  maximalists  would,  a* 
peasant  parties,  have  dealt  with  the  question  with  more  under- 
standing than  the  bolsheviks.  The  latter  are  the  least  fit  to  solve 
the  peasant  question  along  socialist  lines. 

46 


The  City  and  Industry 

The  Development  of  the  Unions 

FOR  the  peasants  the  principal  feature  of  the  revolution  was 
taking  possession  of  the  land.    For  the  proletariat  of  the 
cities  and  the  industries  the  aim  was  to  take  possession  of 
the  factories,  mines  and  means  of  transportation.     The  problem 
was  easily  solved  in  the  country,  because  no  more  knowledge  than 
before  was  necessary  for  the  cultivation  of  the  soil   (in  Russia 
scientific  cultivation  of  the  soil  was  not  yet  introduced),  but  in 
industry  the  situation  was  more  difficult. 

In  the  country  the  combination  of  things  was  easy.  But  in 
industry  the  combination  was  complicated.  In  the  country  there 
were  no  intermediate  stages.  Taking  possession  of  the  soil  was 
the  immediate  aim.  In  the  industrial  centers  another  effort  came 
to  the  surface  in  the  first  period  of  the  revolution  and  demanded 
a  solution,  namely,  workers'  control,  control  of  the  industries. 
This  rallying  word  was  sounded  already  during  the  Kerensky 
period.  It  corresponded  to  the  attempts  of  the  workers  to  over- 
throw autocracy  in  the  factories  as  well  as  the  czar's  autocracy 
in  politics.  Democracy  was  desired  in  industry  as  well  as  in  eco- 
nomic life.  The  workers  felt  that,  to  make  their  emancipation  a 
reality,  the  revolution  in  political  life  would  have  to  be  followed 
by  a  revolution  on  the  economic  field.  That  the  workers  did  not 
immediately  demand  the  turning  over  of  the  factories  had  sev- 
eral reasons.  For  this  purpose  the  Kerensky  government  would 
first  have  to  be  overthrown  or  compelled  to  resign,  but  even 
then  they  did  not  feel  sure  that  they  were  in  a  condition  to  con- 
duct production  in  its  entirety  without  the  private  owner,  who 
in  many  cases  also  was  the  technical  leader.  Finally  the  work- 
ers were  probably  influenced  by  the  circumstance  that  they  felt 
that  the  czar  ruled  over  the  people  but  was  not  the  owner  of  the 
people,  and  that  he  was  sovereign  in  the  state  but  did  not  own 
the  state.  Nor  is  a  general  the  owner  of  the  soldiers  but  he  rules 
them  just  the  same.  Authority,  consequently,  is  not  always  based 
on  property.  The  possibility  was  thinkable  that,  even  if  private 
property  in  the  factories  and  in  industry  was  abolished,  mastery 
could  still  continue.  In  fact,  this  instinct  of  the  workers  was 
correct,  for  at  present  private  property  is,  on  the  whole,  abolished 
in  Russia,  without  giving  the  workers  cause  to  feel  that  they  are 
controllers  of  production  or  masters  of  the  shop.  The  decree  creat- 
ing individual  management  of  the  shops  is  the  cause  of  this.  Con- 

47 


trol  of  industry  in  the  shop  is  an  essential  part  of  proletarian 
democracy.  The  proletariat  must,  consequently,  first  of  all  con- 
quer. 

Control  of  industry,  which  was  the  demand  of  the  workers  in 
the  October  days  of  1917,  finally  became  so  strong  that  it  resulted 
in  control  over  the  employer.  After  this,  taking  possession  of  the 
shops  came  as  a  matter  of  course  and  began  soon  after.  But 
the  taking  over  of  the  factories  is  onfy  the  negative  sidd;  the 
positive  side  is  their  management.  First  in  the  managing  of  them 
begins  socialist  or  communist  economy.  In  the  country  the  case 
is  similar,  but  there  it  is  much  simpler. 

The  most  burning  question  now,  the  question  which  forms 
the  very  center  of  socialization,  is :  What  organization  will  under- 
take to  procure  the  raw  material  and  the  disposal  of  the  manu- 
factured products,  and  what  organs  will  supply  the  workers  with 
the  necessary  means  of  life.  Only  when  the  workers  have  created 
organizations  for  this  purpose  can  the  taking  over  of  the  factories 
meet  with  success.  The  misfortune  of  the  Russian  workers  was 
that  they  had  no  such  organs  at  their  disposition,  that  they,  under 
the  rule  of  czarism,  were  not  in  a  position  to  create  such  organs. 
It  was  exactly  on  this  rock  that  socialization  in  Germany 
stranded  in  the  November  days  of  1918.  The  theoretical  founda- 
tion of  the  German  trade  unions  was  not  of  that  kind.  On  this 
point  only  the  French  syndicalist  unions  have  fought  themselves 
through  to  a  clear  understanding  of  the  role  of  the  labor  organ- 
izations for  the  realization  of  the  social  revolution.  The  German 
syndicalists  also  have  taken  this  standpoint,  even  if  not  always 
so  clearly,  but  in  their  congress  of  Christmas,  1919,  they  adopted 
a  clear  program.  Up  to  the  present  time  they  are  the  only  labor 
organization  in  Germany  with  whom  we  can  find  a  clear  program 
for  the  taking  over  and  the  organizing  of  production  and  con- 
sumption by  the  workers. 

The  lack  of  a  clear  understanding  of  hoiv  the  different  in- 
dustries work  hand  in  hand,  as  well  as  the  lack  of  proper  organ- 
izations for  the  purpose,  had  for  result  that  the  workers,  who  had 
no  idea  of  these  things  and  only  knew  capitalist  economic  meth- 
ods, retained  the  idea  of  these  and  kept  on  running  along  capital- 
ist lines.  But  when  they  had  taken  over  the  factories  they  found 
themselves  in  the  place  of  the  single  private  owner,  the  factory 
owner,  or  the  capitalist  stock  companies.  That  means  that  they 
now  divided  the  owners'  profits  between  them.  But  that  did  not 
abolish  capitalism ;  it  had  only  been  changed  from  private  owner- 
ship ^into  another,  collective  form  of  ownership.  Capitalist  com- 
petition, the  cheating  of  consumers,  the  more  favorable  position 
of  the  workers  who  produced  goods  more  in  demand  or  more 
important,  all  this  remained  as  before,  and  under  similar  circum- 
stances it  will  be  the  same  in  any  place. 

The  workers  of  the  world  must  keep  this  in  sight.  That  the 
idea  has  not  yet  broken  through  in  the  labor  movement  that  the 
workers  are  not  only  exploited  as  producers  but  also  as  consraw- 

48 


ers,  that  depends  very  likely  upon  the  influence  of  Marx.  The 
whole  labor  movement  which  calls  itself  Marxian  has  never  been 
directed  upon  the  carrying  on  of  a  struggle  against  the  exploita- 
tion of  the  workers  as  consumers.  There  was  not  sufficient  atten- 
tion called  to  this  circumstance  in  their  propaganda.  The  work- 
ers are  not  cheated  and  exploited  only  in  the  factory,  but  also  in 
the  satisfying  of  all  their  needs. 

Economic  life  consist  of  two  parts,  production  and  consump- 
tion. In  the  capitalist  system  both  parts,  naturally,  offer  a  chance 
for  the  .exploitation  of  the  workers.  For  that  reason  the  work- 
ers should  combat  both  these  kinds  of  exploitation  equally,  if  they 
want  to  annihilate  the  capitalist  system  and  replace  it  with  a 
socialist  or  communist  system.  But  they  did  not  do  this,  and  they 
are  not  doing  it  yet.  Even  to-day  their  struggle  is  directed  more 
against  the  exploitation  on  the  field  of  production.  Only  as  pro- 
ducers have  they  created  class  struggle  organizations,  and  only 
as  producers  are  they  fighting  the  battle  against  capital.  The 
consumers'  societies,  which  existed  in  Russia,  were  not  class 
struggle  organizations.  Nor  are  they  so  in  Germany.  Even  if 
there  are  consumers'  societies  who  only  have  workers  as  members, 
they  still  are  only  class  organizations,  but  no  class  struggle  or- 
ganizations. Towards  the  end  they  also  began  to  function  as 
such  a  little,  by  taking  care  of  workers  in  strikes.  Evident  as 
this  matter  is,  equally  regrettable  is  it  that  the  workers  neither 
have  nor  had  any  class  struggle  organizations  on  the  field  of  con- 
sumption. It  can  be  understood  because  the  workers  were,  and 
are,  directly  exploited  only  as  producers.  But  as  consumers  they 
are  indirectly  exploited.  The  direct  exploitation  the  workers  can 
easily  see  and  understand,  the  indirect  exploitation  they  discern 
with  more  difficulty.  The  socialists  made  use  of  this  circum- 
stance. They  showed  the  workers  that  they  were  exploited  as 
producers  and  called  on  them  to  organize  and  to  fight.  But  this 
is  quite  unpardonably  thoughtless.  It  was  the  duty  of  the  social- 
ist propaganda  to  point  out  to  the  workers  that  side  of  the  ex- 
ploitation which  was  equally  important,  although  not  so  easy  to 
see  and  understand.  It  was,  of  course,  easy  to  induce  the  workers 
to  struggle  for  a  higher  wage.  But  what  good  did  this  one-sided 
battle  as  producers  do  them?  No  good  at  all!  Even  if  they  won 
the  struggle  and  got  higher  wages,  the  capitalists  always  had  the 
other  side  of  the  exploitation  open,  the  side  of  which  the  workers 
had  not  thought.  The  capitalist  raised  the  price  of  his  wares  and 
thus  rolled  the  wage  increase  on  the  consumers,  or,  in  other 
words,  through  the  wage  increase  the  exploitation  was  not  di- 
minished by  one  iota. 

With  impetuous  force  the  Russian  workers  fought  for  the 
abolition  of  private  ownership  of  the  establishments  by  capital- 
ists. And  they  succeeded.  If  they  had  fought  with  the  same  im- 
petuosity against  the  second  kind  of  exploitation,  on  the  field  of 
consumption,  then — .  But  this  they  could  not  do ;  for  the  Russian 
workers  the  abolition  of  capitalism  was  equal  to  the  abolition  of 

49 


the  capitalists.  They  had  embodied  the  exploiter  in  their  own  em- 
ployer. But  the  exploitation  through  consumption  was  not  a  per- 
son ;  it  was  a  system.  A  system,  hoivever,  can  not  be  removed  by 
removing  or  driving  away  persons.  This  was  also  verified  on  the 
field  of  production.  An  economic  system  which  in  the  human  so- 
ciety fills  the  functions  of  supplying  the  population  with  all  the 
things  that  are  necessary  for  life,  cannot  be  removed  except  by 
means  of  another  economic  'system,  and  only  to  the  extent  that 
this  new  system  is  capable,  in  each  single  instance,  of  stepping 
into  the  breach  of  the  old. 

The  development  of  the  Russian  revolution  shows  us  this  on 
every  point.  The  German  workers  and  the  workers  of  other 
countries  must  learn  from  this  experience.  They  have  to  build 
up  a  socialist  economic  system  in  their  organizations,  which  steps 
in  the  place  of  the  capitalist  system.  If  they  do  not  do  this  and 
a  political  revolution  breaks  out,  then  the  revolution  will  remain 
only  political.  For  this  reason  they  should  begin  with  it  imme- 
diately. The  workers  have  to  organize  themselves  into  consumers' 
unions  or  create  unions  which  on  the  day  after  the  revolution  are 
capable  of  taking  consumption  into  their  hands.  Such  organiza- 
tions are  the  "Bourse  du  Travail"  (labor  exchanges),  or  "Arbei- 
terboerse,"  as  the  Germans  call  them.  Without  such  organizations 
they  will  commit  the  same  errors  as  the  Russian  workers  did, 
and  capitalism,  which  they  had  thrown  out  through  one  door 
and  thought  they  had  conquered  because  its  political  representa- 
tive has  been  made  powerless,  comes  into  evidence  again  from  all 
corners  and  crevices  and  overgrows  the  socialist  beginnings,  until 
the  workers  are  able  to  make  it  superfluous  through  their  own 
new-formed  economic  organizations.  Bu\t  it  is  a  fatal  error  to  put 
this  new  economic  system  into  the  hands  of  the  state. 

We  left  the  Russian  revolution  at  the  stage  where  the  work- 
ers took  possession  of  the  factories  and,  partly  at  their  own  ex- 
pense, produced  for  themselves  without  attacking  the  capitalist 
system  of  consumption.  This  is  by  some  German  social-democratic 
theoreticians,  among  them  Kautsky,  being  described  as  "syndical- 
ism." There  is  nothing  more  false  than  such  a  statement,  which 
they  either  make  out  of  ignorance  or  intentional  deceit.  A  glance 
at  the  declaration  of  principles  of  the  syndicalists  is  sufficient  in 
order  to  convince  any  one  of  this.  A  thorough  refutation  of  this 
error  or  deception  is,  however,  beyond  the  scope  of  this  book. 

That  the  Russian  workers  undertook  nothing  else  and  were 
in  no  position  to  do  anything  else  is  traceable  to  the  circumstance 
that  they  had  no  organization  for  the  purpose.  They  lacked  the 
unions  which  as  the  embryonic  cells  of  the  new  socialist  economic 
system  develop  the  required  abilities  and  organize  for  the  tasks 
which  enable  the  workers  to  crowd  out  the  capitalist  economic 
system  with  a  socialist  system. 

The  Russian  unions  date  back  only  from  the  year  1905. 
After  the  victory  of  the  reaction  they  were  again  dissolved  and 
had  mostly  to  lead  an  underground  existence.  After  1910  they 

50 


started  to  develop  once  more,  but  during  the  years  of  the  war  they 
were  again  fought  most  strenuously  by  the  czarist  government 
and  suppressed. 

After  the  overthrow  of  czarism  in  March  1917  the  unions 
began  to  push  forward  in  a  powerful  manner,  so  that,  when  in 
July  a  conference  of  the  unions  took  place  in  Petrograd  (the 
third  conference),  already  1,475,425  members  were  represented 
by  220  delegates.  At  this  conference  it  became  apparent  of 
what  character  the  Russian  unions  were.  Two  different  tenden- 
cies were  represented;  one  left  and  one  right.  The  left  wing  took 
the  stand  that  the  unions  should  repudiate  every  thought  of 
class  conciliation  and  of  the  possibility  of  co-operation  with  the 
bourgeoisie.  But  this  left  wing  lacked  about  15-20  votes  of  a 
majority  and  its  propositions  did  not  carry.  But  resolutions  were 
adopted  calling  for  a  greater  taxation  of  the  owning  classes,  for 
the  introduction  of  maximum  prices  o<n  the  most  important  prod- 
ucts, for  control  of  production,  for  direct  participation  in  the  affairs 
of  the  state  by  the  most  important  branches  of  production,  for 
rigid  bank  control,  for  compulsory  syndicating  and  trustification, 
for  reorganization  of  the  organs  of  state  control.  At  the  same 
time  a  declaration  was  made  that  the  process  of  control  were 
too  difficult  for  the  proletariat  to  take  over,  alone  or  in  prepon- 
derance. 

From  the  stand  thus  taken  by  the  unions  it  will  be  seen  that,  \ 
in  consequence  of  the  revolutionary  situation,  the  unions  oc- 
cupied themselves  with  problems,  which  came  to  the  front  even 
in  the  German  'revolution,  -  -  control  over  production,  the  right 
of  the  workers  to  a  voice  in  engaging  and  discharging  workers, 
and  so  on.  In  Germany  also  they  have  occupied  themselves  with 
democratic  demands,  with  the  transplantation  of  democracy  into 
industry,  something  which  the  capitalists  resisted  under  the 
slogan  that  they  were  "master  of  the  house".  In  spite  of  all  the 
progress  that  this  workers'  control  signifies,  it  still  is  nothing 
else  than  the  introduction  of  democracy  in  the  economic  life, 
but  it  is  not  the  social  revolution  in  itself.  Even  such  organizations 
which  are  not  in  principle  for  the  social  revolution  may  put  up 
such  demands  for  joint  control,  as  for  instance  the  German 
"free"  unions  did,  unions  which  were  free  only  in  the  sense 
that  they  did  not  stand  in  the  service  of  any  socialist  ideas. 

When  later  the  October  revolution  broke  out  and  ended  in 
a  bolshevik  victory,  the  bolsheviks,  as  a  radical-democratic  party, 
wished  to  carry  the  revolution  over  to  the  place  of  work.  The 
workers  themselves  also,  naturally,  wanted  to  make  the  revolution 
into  a  social  revolution,  that  is,  altogether  eliminate  the  capit- 
alists. 

But  then  it  became  evident  that  this  was  not  so  easy  as 
was  expected.  And  why  not?  Because  the  workers  of  Russia  were 
not  in  a  position  to  abolish  capitalism,  in  the  hands  of  which 
the  whole  economic  life  had  rested  up  to  that  time,  without 
exposing  economic  life  to  the  worst  kind  of  crisis.  The  social 

51 


revolution  confronted  the  workers  with  tasks  to  which  they 
were  not  eqvjoii  in  their  first  onrush.  But  as  a  party  which  could 
only  lean  on  the  working  class  and  on  no  other  class  (on  the 
peasants  only  conditionally)  had  the  power  in  the  state,  this 
party  also  had  to  take  over  the  responsibility  for  the  economic 
life,  if  it  did  not  wish  to  either  leave  the  capitalists  in  their 
position  of  power  on  the  economic  field  or  again  give  up  its 
political  power.  But  they  could  undertake  nothing  without  the 
workers,  as  they  had  no  state  organs  at  their  disposition  for 
these  purposes. 

They,  consequently,  turned  to  the  unions.  The  workers  strove 
for .  economic  liberty,  for  elimination  of  exploitation  by  the 
employers.  In  many  cases  they  chased  the  employer  to  the  devil; 
1 1  irany  cases  he  left  his  factory  or  his  works  in  the  lurch,  from 
despair,  or  from  the  hope  to  be  able  to  sabotage  production  by 
this  means,  so  that  the  workers,  who  would  then  understand 
their  own  incapacity,  would  call  him  back  again.  In  a  number 
of  cases  it  has  also  happened  that  to-day  the  old  employer  is 
again  the  leader  of  the  establishment.  Not  with  the  old  right  of 
ownership,  it  is  true,  but  as  a  so-called  specialist,  who  is  far 
better  off  than  the  worker. 

As  the  workers  now  started  to  run  industry,  they  elected 
for  that  purpose  committees,  so-called  factory  committees.  These 
factory  committees  took  over  the  factories.  But  as  the  state 
needed  the  products  created^  it  entered  into  indirect  contact  with 
the  factory  committees  through  the  unions.  With  the  factory 
committees  themselves  the  state  could  not  do  business,  because 
for  that  purpose  a  large  apparatus  would  have  been  necessary. 
The  unions  thus  received  the  role  of  negotiating  production  for 
the  state.  The  ruling  party  soon  recognized  the  important  role 
which  falls  to  the  unions  on  the  field  of  production  and  on  the 
whole  economic  field  in  general,  and,  as  many  of  the  party 
members  belonged  to  the  unions  (it  continued,  after  all,  to  be  a 
party  mostly  composed  of  workers) ,  it  sought,  through  its  mem- 
bers, to  place  the  unions  under  the  influence  of  the  party  and 
make  them  subordinate  to  the  party.  This  was  the  best  way  for 
the  ruling  party  to  secure  control  of  production  and  to  place  the 
whole  of  production  in  their  service.  The  bolshevik  party  also 
declared  in  their  program  that  "the  organization  apparatus  of 
nationalized  industry  must  first  of  all  rest  upon  the  unions." 

The  factory  committees  were,  consequently,  children  of  the 
revolution^  sprung  from  the  needs  of  the  workers  to  create  organs 
of  managing  the  factories.  But  the  workers  could  not  help  but 
soon  perceiving  that  this  alone  was  not  sufficient.  If  they 
did  not  want  to  remain  in  the  capitalist  economic  system  they 
were  compelled  to  place  consumption  also  upon  an  organized] 
fellowship  basis.  But  for  all  these  tasks  they  had  never  prepared 
themselves.  All  this  was  so  new  to  them  that  they,  to  begin  with, 
had  to  go  through  many  experiments,  many  mistakes.  Instinctive^ 
ly,  or  from  very  obvious  reasons  they  turned  to  their  unions.  In 

52 


these  they  now  had  to  look  for  their  natural  agents  and  repre- 
sentatives. They  were  further  strengthened  in  their  confidence 
in  the  unions  through  the  circumstance  that  the  new  ruling 
party,  or,  to  speak  more  plainly,  the  state,  also  turned  to  the 
unions  with  the  same  errands  and  wanted  to  use  the  unions  for 
the  same  purpose.  As  the  unions  still  were  of  too  new  a 
structure  and  were  confronted  with  functions  to  which  they 
were  unaccustomed,  it  is  easy  to  understand  that  they  leaned 
for  support  more  or  less  on  the  state  and  recognized  as  leader 
the  party  which  sat  at  the  rudder,  especially  as  it  was  a 
proletarian  party  with  many  members  in  their  own  ranks.  But 
the  party,  with  all  the  power  of  the  state  at  its  disposition, 
began  an  intensive  propaganda  in  the  ranks  of  the  unions,  in 
order  to  get  greater  influence.  And  in  this  it  succeeded,  but  the 
greater  the  influence  of  the  party  became,  the  more  the  unions 
lost  in  independence,  the  more  they  came  under  the  party  whip. 
To  the  extent  that  this  development  progressed,  the  rights  of  the 
factory  councils  or  committees  were  circumscribed. 

The  party,  which  desired  to  get  control  of  production  through 
the  unions  (and  it  succeeded  in  getting  it)  wished  to  make 
production  as  abundant  and  profitable  as  possible.  But  production 
did  not  rise;  on  the  contrary,  with  the  decreasing  supply  of 
foodstuffs  it  fell  more  and  more.  The  party's  policy  towards 
the  peasants  was  determined  through  the  grain  monopoly.  In 
accordance  with  this  the  peasants  were  to  deliver  all  grain  to  the 
state.  The  peasants  did  not  want  to  dp  this.  It  came  to  disputes. 
The  state  began  to  requisition  the  grain.  But  the  grain  deliveries 
were  not  increased  through  these  means,  and  the  workers  did  not 
receive  enough  bread.  This  had  a  tendency  to  diminish  their 
productivity.  The  factory  committees  were  not  energetic  enough, 
and  the  state  took  to  other  means.  It  took  the  management  out 
)p/  the  hands  of  the  committees  and  placed  it  in  the  hands  of 
individuals.  The  managing  councils  had  thus  played  their  role 
as  managers  of  production  to  the  end  and  lost  their  right 
of  self-determination. 

During  the  period  of  czarism  and  capitalism  the  Russian 
unions  were,  in  part,  organizations  similar  to  the  German  "free" 
unions,  but  a  good  deal  more  radical.  Their  radical  position  was 
evident  already  from  the  persecution  by  czarism.  They  were 
compelled  to  be  not  only  relief  organizations  but  also  fighting  or- 
ganizations. In  how  far  they  served  this  purpose,  we  can  best 
learn  from  the  third  conference,  already  mentioned,  which  took 
place  during  the  storms  of  the  revolution  in  November  1917. 
Already  then  managing  councils  were  recognized  as  necessary 
organs  with  the  function  of  control  over  the  workers.  But  during 
this  period  the  unions  were  still  class  struggle  organizations. 
Later  they  changed  from  class  struggle  organizations  to  productive 
organizations. 

The  change  in  the  character  of  the  unions  was  also  ac- 
companied by  a  change  in  the  form  of  the  organization.  While 

53 


they  were  formerly  organized  along  craft  lines,  they  now  became 
industrial  organizations.  Without  doubt  the  industrial  form  of 
organization  is  the  best  one  for  unions  which  shall  serve  as 
organs  of  production.  For  the  workers  organized  along  industrial 
lines  are  better  in  position  to  manage  production  than  the  craft 
unions.  This  has  been  shown  in  America.  The  organization  of 
the  Industrial  Workers  of  the  World  is  also  built  on  this 
principle,  as  in  accordance  with  its  theory  it  intends  to  take  over 
production.  The  I.  W  .W.  are,  no  doubt,  the  forerunners  of  this 
modern  form  of  union  movement.  But  the  Communist  Party  of 
Russia  (  the  bolsheviks)  contributed  to  the  acceleration  of  this 
development.  It  had,  through  the  above  mentioned  process, 
obtained  more  and  more  influence  in  the  unions,  so  that  their 
resolutions  always  went  through  at  the  later  congresses.  Through 
the  overwhelming  influence  of  the  government  party  the  uwiions 
became  more  and  more  the  tools  of  the  state;  they  were  made 
into  state  organs. 


The  formal  decision  to  make  them  state  organs  was  made 
at  the  second  congress  of  the  unions  in  January  1919. 

There  it  says :  "that  the  nationalization  of  all  the  means 
of  production  and  the  organization  of  society  on  a  new 
socialist  foundation  requires  slow  and  persevering  labor  with 
the  rebuilding  of  the  whole  state  machinery,  as  well  as  th( 
creating  of  new  organs  of  accounting,  and  organs  for  contro] 
and  regulation  of  the  whole  system  of  production  an< 
distribution.  This  requires  of  the  unions  a  more  energetic 
and  more  active  participation  in  the  exercise  of  soviet  power, 
through  direct  representatives  in  all  organs  of  the  state. 
The  whole  process  of  melting  the  unions  together  with  the 
organs  of  state  power,  must  take  place  as  the  unavoidable 
result  of  their  most  intimate  co-operation." 

This  would,  consequently,  mean  that  the  unions  have  in- 
fluence on  the  policy  of  the  state,  just  as,  inversely,  the  soviel 
organs  have  influence  on  the  unions.  I  was  told  in  Moscow  thai 
this  was  the  case,  and  that  the  unions  had  representations  ii 
the  different  commissariats.  Thus;  the  president  of  the  Ail- 
Russian  Central  Council  of  the  Unions,  M.  Tomski,  is  also 
member  of  the  war  commissariat.  Besides,  there  are  other  mem- 
bers of  the  Central  Council  of  the  Unions  in  other  commissariai 
through  which  arrangement  the  fusion  spoken  of  in  the  cong] 
decision  and  the  changing  of  the  unions  into  state  organ* 
(Verstaatlichung)  is  secured.  But  this  is  not  so  to  understan< 
that  any  union  member  can  become  a  member  of  a  commissa- 
riat of  the  Council  of  People's  Commissars.  In  order  to  hav< 
this  possibility  he  must  first  have  been  elected  to  the  Council 
of  the  Trade  Unions.  To  this  Central  Council  of  the  Unions  onl\ 
members  of  the  Communist  Party  (bolsheviks)  can  be  elected. 
I  know  old  revolutionaries  who  were  communists  before  th< 
social-democratic  party  of  the  bolsheviks  called  itself  communij 

54 


who  belong  to  the  unions.  They  are  also  intelligent  and  surely 
have  all  the  qualities  which  make  them  suitable  for  the  Central 
Council  of  the  Trade  Unions.  But  they  can  never  come  to  this 
as  long  as  they  do  not  join  the  Communist  Party.  Thus  they 
can  never  participate  in  the  work  of  the  Soviets,  and  the  so- 
called  co-operation  of  the  workers  through  their  unions  is 
possible  only  for  the  members  of  the  ruling  party.  Not  the  unions 
as  such,  but  the  communist-bolsheviks  who  are  in  the  unions, 
have  the  right  to  co-operate  in  the  state  organs. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  the  revolutionary  party  could 
not  make  use  of  all  workers  or  employees,  organized  into  the 
unions,  on  all  kinds  of  work  and,  particularly,  not  in  the 
responsible  positions.  For  in  the  unions  there  were,  and  is  now, 
many  who  are  against  the  revolution  on  principle  and  who, 
if  they  had  been  made  use  of,  without  doubt  would  have  done 
everything  to  retard  and  hold  up  revolutionary  progress.  But 
this  should  not  have  been  done  with  revolutionaries,  only  be- 
cause they  had  a  different  opinion  or  because  they  belonged  to 
a  different  party  or  movement.  That  means  that  the  bolsheviks 
seek  to  monopolize  the  revolution,  that  they  want  to  claim  the 
right  to  the  revolution  for  only  one  party,  while  there  still  are 
several  revolutionary  parties  in  Russia. 

The  Industrial  Union  is  an  advanced  form  compared  with 
the  guild  or  craft  form.  The  industrial  unions  of  Russia  were 
organized  on  centralist  lines.  Thus  the  soviet  government  was 
best  in  a  position  to  use  the  unions  as  their  own  apparatus. 
In  the  mad  tempo  of  the  Russian  revolution  the  unions  were 
too  unripe  to  be  able  to  choose  their  forms  of  organization. 
In  order  to  come  to  some  sort  of  order  in  the  general  disorder, 
the  bolsheviks  tried  for  a  short  while  to  eliminate  the  unions 
and  only  created  Councils,  Central  Councils  or  Factory  Councils, 
but  these  experiments  have  gone  out  of  fashion .  They  disappeared 
after  a  very  short  duration;  after  the  unions  in  their  first 
congress,  in  January,  1918,  had  liquidated  these  central  councils 
of  the  factory  councils, — as  they  neither  wished  to  have  nor 
could  have  any  competing  organizations  which  only  led  to 
mutual  provocation  and  quarrels, —  the  whole  thing  was  laid 
into  the  hands  of  one  central  body  which  was  given  great 
authority.  Through  this  central  body  the  state  could  now  place 
its  hands  on  the  smallest  body,  the  outermost  points  on  the 
circumference.  Thus,  the  form  of  organization  of  the  unions  in 
Russia  was  born  in  the  hour  of  need  and  carried  the  stamp  of 
the  process  upon  itself.  The  unions  have  lost  their  independence, 
they  are  tools  of  the  state.  Trotzky  is  not  so  very  wrong  when 
in  his  anti-Kautsky  book  he  says:  "After  once  taking  the  power 
one  cannot  accept  certain  consequences  and  repudiate  others."  From 
the  possession  of  power,  which  they  wanted  to  keep,  and  had 
to  keep  at  any  cost,  one  thing  followed  the  other,  and  the  workers 
are  again  ruled  over. 

While  the  industrial  union  form  is  the  most  proper  form  of 

55 


union  for  the  workers,  even  of  other  countries,  still,  the  centralism 
of  these  industrial  unions,  which  made  the  subordination  of  the 
union  under  the  party  and  the  soviet  government  possible,  was 
to  be  traced  to  that  particular  circumstance.  But  if  the  Russian 
bolsheviks  want  to  transfer  their  own  forms  of  organization 
upon  the  rest  of  the  countries,  then  they  make  a  fatal  error. 
As,  the  peculiar  form  of  organization  called  "Labor  Bureaus" 
arose  out  of  French  soil,  and  as  the  Industrial  Unions  arose  in 
America,  so  there  grew  up  in  Russia  under  particular  circum- 
stances the  dependence  of  the  unions  upon  the  party.  Just  as 
it  would  be  a  failure  to  transfer  the  French  form  to  American 
conditions,  so  it  is  also  a  failure  to  try  to  carry  over  the  Russian 
form  to  other  countries,  as  provided  for  in  the  statutes  of  the 
Third  International.  In  Sweden,  for  instance,  the  local  samor- 
ganization  is  a  far  better  form  for  that  country,  not  only  as  a 
fighting  organization  but  also  as  a  future  foundation  for  socialist 
production.  Anyhow,  it  would  be  difficult  for  the  centralistic 
leadership  of  a  political  party  to  work  its  way  into  control  of  such 
a  form  of  organization,  in  fact,  it  is  inconceivable. 

The  Organization  of  the  Unions 

The  building  of  the  Russian  unions  is  partly  done  from  ti 
top  downward  and  partly  from  the  bottom  upward.  Bu\t  their 
functions  take  place  exclusively  from  the  top  dowmvard.  We 
therefore  get  a  better  picture  of  the  general  activity  of  the 
unions,  which  at  the  same  time  serve  as  a  regulator  of  production, 
when  we  consider  their  growth  outward  from  the  center,  as  the 
rules  prescribe.  In  Russia,  membership  in  the  unions  is  obligatory 
for  all  industrial  workers.  There  are  4%  millions  of  organized 
workers  in  Russia,  (1920). 

Every  organization  must  be  practical,  that  is,  its  form  must 
correspond  to  the  functions  it  has  to  fill.  As  the  present  function 
of  the  Russian  unions  is  to  manage  industry  and  to  fill  the 
tasks  given  it  by  the  Supreme  Council  of  National  Economy, 
which  has  production  in  its  hands,  the  unions  must  be  so  or- 
ganized that  they  can  do  justice  to  these  tasks.  The  shops 
(factories,  furnaces,  mines,  transport  and  distribution  facilities) 
are  no  longer  in  the  hands  of  private  employers  but  in  the  hands 
of  the  state.  When  the  shops  still  were  in  the  hands  of  private 
employers,  a  union  organization  of  the  kind  that  exists  today 
was  not  necessary  for  capitalist  production.  But  when  every- 
thing was  nationalized  and  thus  became  the  property  of  a  single 
owner,  (the  state) ,  this  single  owner,  also  had  to  be  in  the  position 
of  being  able  to  supervise  everything  from  one  central  point, 
We  can  best  illustrate  this  if  we  imagine  a  great  capitalist 
company,  which  does  not  either  belong  to  any  single  person 
but  still  all  threads  run  together  in  one  central  point.  Everything 
is  conducted  from  this  central  point.  Everything  must  again 
come  back  to  that  point. 

56 


The  manager  of  production  is  the  Supreme  Council  of 
National  Economy.  To  production  belong  two  parts:  men  and 
things.  The  organization  of  the  human  part  is  the  unions.  For 
this  reason  the  Supreme  Council  of  National  Economy  must  act 
through  the  unions.  The  manner  of  procedure  is  this:  The 
managers  of  the  factories  are  appointed  by  the  S.  C.  of  N.  E. 
after  nominations  by  the  unions.  Furthermore,  representatives 
of  the  S.  C.  of  N.  E.  have  a  seat  in  the  councils  of  the  unions. 
Besides,  the  unions  have  a  representative  in  the  Commissariat  of 
Labor.  The  commissar  of  the  Commissariat  of  Labor,  who  at 
the  same  time  is  a  member  of  the  Council  of  People's  Commissars 
is  put  on  this  post  through  the  joint  selection  of  the  unions. 

a)  The  Central  Council  of  the  All-Russian  Unions  consists 
of  120  members  and  is  elected  from  a  congress  of  local  district 
committees,  gouvernement  committees,  local  district  councils  and 
gouvernement  councils.  The  president  of  the  Central  Council  of  the 
All-Russian  Unions  is  Michael  Tomski.  The  members  of  the 
Central  Committee  are  eleven.  They  are,  besides  Tomski:  A. 
A^drejeff,  W.  Kossior,  E.  Holzman,  H.  Ziperovitch,  N.  Ivanoff, 
N.  Bucharin,  P.  Rutzutak,  J.  Lutovinow  and  W.  Schmidt. 

Of  these,  two  sit  in  the  Council  of  People's  Commissars 
(Sownarkom),  one  with  a  deciding  vote,  Schmidt,  as  People's 
Commissar  of  Labor,  and  M.  Tomski  with  a  consultative  voice. 
Besides,  Tomski  takes  part  in  the  Committee  of  Defense  of  the 
Soviet  Republic,  with  a  deciding  vote.  Both  are  communists, 
members  of  the  bolshevik  party,  to  which  also  all  the  others 
mentioned  belong.  Non-members  of  the  bolshevik  party  cannot 
be  elected  to  the  Central  Council  of  the  All-Russian  Unions. 

The  functions  of  this  Central  Council  of  the  All-Russian 
Unions  are: 

1.  Regulating  the  work  and  the  wages  (sanctioning  of  the 
wage  scale).    Dividing  of  the  workers  into  three  groups, 
by  means  of  which  the  qualified  workers,  the  premiums 
and  the  rations  are  determined.  The  establishment  of  a 
scientific  institute   for  calculation   of  the  workers'   ex- 
penditure of  energy. 

2.  The  establishment  of  a  labor  secretariat  to  include  all 
unions,  25  instructors  are  sent  to  the  different  gouverne- 
ments   for   the   carrying   out   of   this   measure     in   the 
provinces  and  to  fix  membership  contributions.  At  present 
the   contribution    amounts   to   2%    of   the   wages.    It   is 
obligatory  and  is  deducted  from  the  wages. 

3.  Culture  department:     Representatives    are    sent    to   the 
presiding  board  of  the   Commissariat  of  Education,   in 
order  to  organize,  under  the  leadership  of  that  commissa- 
riat, continuation  schools    for    the    working    youth    and 
establish  evening  courses  for  all  workers. 

4.  Participation  in  the  work  of  the  Supreme  Council  of 
National  Economy. 

57 


Besides  the  above  mentioned  presiding  board  of  eleven 
persons  there  is  a  general  session  of  representatives  of  the 
Central  Committees  of  the  various  industrial  unions.  This 
consists  of  40  persons. 

b)  Gouvernement  or  Provincial  Councils.  In  order  to  trans- 
mit these  functions  to  the  ranks  of  the  workers,  the  Central  Coun- 
cil sends  its  decisions  (partly  of  their  own  making) ,  as  well  as  the 
decrees  of  the   Supreme   Council   of   National   Economy  or  the 
Commissariat     of     Labor    to   the    gouvernement    or    provincial 
Councils  of  the  unions  in  all  crafts  or  industries,  as  well  as  to 
the  central   committees  of  the  Industrial  Unions. 

These  ' 'gouvernement  councils"  consist  of  7-15  persons.  They 
are  elected  by  the  local  district  councils  of  all  unions.  The  gouver- 
nement councils  comprises  all  the  workers  of  all  occupations  in  a 
gouvernement.  The  functions  of  a  gouvernement  council  are  to 
carry  out  the  decisions  and  the  tasks  referred  to  it  by  the  Central 
Council  of  the  Ail-Russian  Unions  which  are  worked  out  on  the 
basis  of  the  functions  outlined  in  the  above  mentioned  f our  parag- 
raphs. 

c)  The  Local  District  Councils.  They  are  elected  by  all  the 
organized    workers    of    the    whole    local    district      (in    German 
"Kreis"')  They  consist  of  5-9  members.  Their  tasks  are  to  carry 
out  the  work  turned  over  to   them   by  the   gouvernement    union 
councils. 

d)  The  Central  Committee  of  the  Industrial  Union.  Besides 
the  above  mentioned  organs  there  are  the  Industrial  Unions.   The 
central  committees  of  these  industrial  unions  have  a  membership 
of  15-21.  These  central  committees  are  elected  by  the  local  district 
and  provincial  committees  of  the  unions  in  question.  The  functions 
of  these  central  committees  of  the  industrial  unions  are  about  the 
same  as  those  of  the  Central  Council  of  the  All-Russian  Unions, 
only  they  are  specially  adapted  for  the  particular  industry  such  as 
metal,  textile,  or  food  stuffs.  They  occupy  themselves  in  particular 
with  the  elaboration  of  tariffs,  serve  as  information  and  propa- 
ganda bureaus,  have  charge  of  the  central  supply  of  the  special 
kind  of  working  clothes  for  the  workers  of  their  calling,  which 
are  necessary  for  the  work,  and  send  instructors  to  the  lower 
sub-committees.   There  are  also  special   commissions   or  boards 
elected  by  these  central  committees  in  connection  with  the  Su- 
preme Council  of  National  Economy.  Such  boards  formed,  with 
the   corresponding    departments    of   the    S.    C.    of   N.    E.,    the 
Central   Committee  of  the   Industrial   Unions   of  the  foodstuff 
industry,  the  machinery  industry,  the  electrical  industry  and  all 
those  which  had  charge  of  the  provisioning  of  the  country.  It  was 
the  duty  of  these  boards  to  take  part  in  the  provisioning.   In 
January    1920    there    were    32    Industrial  Unions  and  an  equal 
number  of  central  committees.    At  the  last  III.  congress  it  was, 
however  decided  to  undertake  amalgamations  which  will  reduce 
the  number  to  23. 

58 


e)  The  Provincial  Committee  is  the  next  organ  with  which 
the  Central  Committee  of  the  Industrial  Unions  has  direct  rela- 
tions.   It  consists  of  5-9  members.     Each  union  has  such  a  pro- 
vincial committee.    There  is  a  provincial  committee  of  the  unions 
of  the  metal  workers,  the  foodstuffs  workers,  etc.   This  provincial 
committee  is  elected  by  the  local  district  (Kreis)  committees  and_ 
the  shop  councils.    Its  functions  are  to  carry  out  the  instructions 
given  it  by  the  Central  Committee  of  the  Industrial  Unions.    To 
this  provincial  committee  the  Supreme  Council  of  National  Econ- 
omy also  send  a  representative,  in  order  to  help  the  committees  in 
their  work. 

f)  The   Local   District    Committee    is    in   its    functions    a 
daughter  organization  of  the  provincial  committee.     Each  union 
has  such  a  local  district  committee.    Thus,  there  is  one  for  the 
metal  industry,  one  for  the  foodstuffs  industry,  etc.     The  local 
district  committee  is  elected  by  the  shop  councils  or  factory  com- 
mittees. 

g)  The  Factory  Committees.  The  lowest  organs  of  the  unions, 
which  are  also  called  cells,  are  the  factory  committees  or  shop 
councils.    They  are  elected  by  the  workers.    Their  tasks  or  func- 
tions were  worked  out  about  the  middle  of  1918  by  the  Central 
Council  of  the  Ail-Russian  Unions,  which  consists  only  of  party 
communists  and  were  announced  to  the  workers  as  decrees.  They 
read  as  follows: 

1.  The  shop  councils,  according  to  the  decision  of  the  cen- 
tral council  of  the  unions,  take  all  measures  desirable  for 
welding  together  the  workers  and  employees  of  an  enter- 
prise into  a  productive  organization. 

2.  They  establish  am.ong  the  workers  and  employees  a  strict 
proletarian  discipline  determined  by  the  union. 

3.  To  watch  over  the  rigid  enforcement  of  all  measures  and 
rules  by  the  Commissariat  of  Labor  for  the  protection  of 
the  worker  and  to  devise  ways  and  means  of  improving 
the  conditions  of  work. 

4.  They  investigate  whether  the  establishment  has  enforced 
all  the  rules  of  the  Supreme  Council  aiming  at  the  in- 
crease   of    production    and    the    maintenance    of    busi- 
ness procedure. 

5.  They  enforce  strictly  and  exactly  the  mutual  observance 
of  the  tariff  agreements  and  normal  productivity. 

6.  They  exercise  full  control  over  the  work. 

7.  They  undertake  the  supplying  of  the  workers  with  the 
articles  needed,  in  accordance  with  the  rules  of  the  food- 
stuffs authorities.    For  that  purpose  they  enter  into  con- 
nection with  the  corresponding  organizations  and  estab- 
lish people's  kitchens,  consumers*  'unions,  etc. 

8.  They  execute  the  decisions  of  the  workers  grievance  com- 

59 


mittees  and  the  punishments  measured  out  by  these,  in 
accordance  with  the  tariff  agreements. 

9.  They  participate  in  the  engaging  and  discharging  of 
workers  and  employees,  according  to  the  decree  about 
labor  exchanges  and  the  instructions  of  the  union. 

These  are  to-day  the  functions  of  the  shop  councils.  Thus, 
we  must  here  add,  that  the  workers  no  longer  have  the  right  to 
manage  the  establishment  or  to  say  a  word  about  the  process  of 
production.  In  the  third  congress,  in  March  1920,  position  was 
expressly  taken  against  this  right  of  the  workers,  on  the  ground 
that  this  right  now  belonged  to  the  unions  as  a  whole  and  not 
to  single  groups.  But  it  is  not  even  the  unions  who  appoint  the 
managers  of  the  enterprises;  it  is  the  Supreme  Council  of  Na- 
tional Economy,  which  has  this  right,  after  the  recommendation 
of  the  unions.  Manager  of  the  establishment  becomes  he  who  is 
appointed  by  the  S.  C,  of  N.  E.  In  the  decision  of  March,  1920, 
it  says: 

"The  shop  committees  are  hereby  established  as  the  local  units 
of  the  unions,  with  functions  analogous  to  the  unions,  with  reten- 
tion of  responsibility,  and  under  the  report  sphere  of  the  higher 
instances  of  the  unions,  and  they  are  hereby  enjoined  from  in  any 
manner  meddling  with  the  conduct  of  the  establishment's  busi- 
ness; for  the  elimination  of  parallel  work  in  the  offices  of  the 
management  and  the  unions  of  an  establishment  all  production 
commissions  of  the  shop  committees  are  hereby  disestablished." 

Hefre  is,  as  we  see,  quite  openly  expressed,  that  the  workers 
have  no  right  wJiatsoever  in  the  \management  of  production  on 
the  place  of  work;  yes,  even  the  control,  ^vhich  in  the  first  days 
of  the  revolution  was  such  a  popular  demand,  has  been  suspended. 
It  says  plainly  that  the  workers  must  keep  from  any  meddlii 
ivith  the  conduct  of  the  business. 

Nor  is  the  right  of  engaging  and  discharging  workers  men- 
tioned in  Article  9  saved  to  the  workers.  Through  the  "Law  of 
Mobilization  of  Labor  Power"  the  workers  are  compelled  to  go 
to  the  place  of  work  to  which  they  are  assigned.  If  they  leave 
that  place  without  permission  of  their  superiors  they  can  be  pun- 
ished. And  that  happens  often.  The  idea  with  this  is  to  hit  the 
bourgeoisie,  all  labor  power  being  registered.  But,  as  the  Moscow 
papers  related  in  the  spring  of  1920,  there  were  in  Moscow  312,- 
000  unregistered  persons,  which  were  not  affected  by  this  decree, 
or  only  in  an  unsatisfactory  way.  Among  these  312,000,  few  are 
workers,  most  of  them  belonging  to  the  bourgeois  element.  This 
instance  proves  how  difficult  it  is  to  hit  the  right  ones  and  pull 
the  bourgeoisie  out  to  work.  Now  it  is  attempted  to  combat  this 
by  means  of  work-books.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  this  will  be  suc- 
cessful now  and  in  the  future,  in  order  that  the  burden  of  the 
workers  may  be  lightened. 

But  if  we  consider  the  form  of  organization  by  itself  and 
compare  it  with  other  upiions,  we  find  the  form  used  by  the  Ger- 

60 


man  syndicalists  to  be  most  like  the  Russian  form.  Here  also  we 
have  two  poles,  the  industrial  o>r  craft  union  with  its  groupings, 
and  the  Labor  Bureaus.  The  difference  consists  only  in  this  that 
the  Russian  unions  have  not  fully  carried  out  the  idea  of  Labor 
Bureaus  (Arbeiterboerse).  In  Russia  we  have  only  the  local  dis- 
trict council  (this  would  correspond  to  the  labor  bureau  of  the 
German  syndicalists)  and  gouvernement  or  provincial  councils. ~Iir 
Russia  there  is  no  federation  of  all  the  "labor  bureaus"  of  the 
country.  This  function  falls  to  the  Central  Councils  of  the  All- 
Russian  Unions,  which,  however,  at  the  same  time  is  expected  to 
be,  and  is,  principally  a  centralistic  grouping  of  the  Industrial 
Unions.  But  as  this  is  a  centrum  for  both  functions,  its  function 
must  with  necessity  be  a  difficult  one. 

A  further  difference  consists  in  the  very  nature  of  the  two 
organizations;  the  Russian  unions  are  absolutely  centralistic;  the 
single  parts  have  no  right  to  self-determination;  they  have  to 
carry  out  the  decisions  and  orders  of  the  central  councils  to  the 
limit.  But  in  Freie  Arbeiter-Union  Deutschlands  (Free  Labor 
Union  of  Germany),  that  is,  the  Syndicalist  Movement,  the  local 
organizations,  the  Labor  Bureaus  as  well  as  individual  unions  be- 
longing to  the  industrial  or  craft  federations  have  the  right  of 
complete  self-determination.  The  idea  which  serves  as  a  founda- 
tion of  the  Russian  unions  is  the  same  as,  or  similar  to  the  funda- 
mental idea  of  the  German  syndicalists.  Both  wish  to  be  the 
organizations  which  have  to  solve  the  problem  of  production  and 
consumption  in  the  socialist  society. 

These  tasks  which  the  Freie  Arbeiter-Union  of  Germany  has 
set  for  itself,  theoretically,  the  Russian  unions  had  an  opportun- 
ity to  put  into  practice,  although  under  other  conditions  and  with 
the  use  of  other  means.  But  it  has  not  yet  been  possible  to  com- 
pletely  grip  the  whole  economic  life  through  the  unions.  Lozov- 
sky,  one  of  the  presiding  members  of  the  Central  Council  of  the 
Ail-Russian  Unions,  says  in  a  pamphlet  treating  of  the  Russian 
unions,  that  this  is  an  ideal  to  which  they  would,  without  doubt, 
approach  in  the  future,  but  that  it  is  not  possible  for  the  present. 

The  provisioning  is  still  largely  handled  by  the  nationalized 
Consumers'  Societies  (Centrosoyuz),  who  co-operate  with  the 
Food  Stuffs  Commissariat  and  have  a  branch  in  each  locality. 
This  branch  supplies  the  workers  with  foodstuffs  through  the 
shop  councils  or  factory  committees.  For  the  rest,  the  supplying 
of  food  stuffs  is  not  in  the  hands  of  one  single  organization.  As 
the  food  stuffs  are  so  scarce  everybody  is  bungling  with  it.  Lo- 
zovsky  also  says  that  "in  the  same  measure  as  the  unions  are  per- 
fecting themselves  and  fill  all  the  functions  of  economic  life,  the 
Soviets  will  disappear.  In  bolshevik  theory  the  Soviets  are,  in 
consequence,  intended  only  as  the  weapons  of  the  period  of  tran- 
sition, the  period  of  the  dictatorship  of  the  proletariat,  for  the 
breaking  down  of  capitalism. 


61 


The  Opposition  in  the  Unions 

We  have  now  discussed  the  program,  the  form  and  the  func- 
tions of  the  Russian  unions.  I  have  also  taken  pains  to  ascertain 
whether  the  Russian  workers  are  all  satisfied  with  the  present 
condition  of  the  unions  or  whether  there  are  tendencies  which  are 
in  opposition.  And  I  was  able  to  observe  an  opposition  coming 
from  two  different  camps,  first  from  the  menshevik  camp,  and, 
second,  from  the  camp  of  the  anarcho-syndicalists.  The  opposition 
of  the  mensheviks  has  taken  root  principally  in  the  ranks  of  the 
printers.  It  takes  the  standpoint  of  democracy.  It  is  of  the 
opinion  that  the  workers  should  co-operate  with  other  parties  and 
classes,  as  only  then  a  continued  development  of  economic  condi- 
tions would  be  thinkable.  Earlier  this  tendency  stood  for  the 
Constituent  Assembly,  but  now  that  the  assembly  has  ceased  to 
exist,  they  accept  fait  accompli.  Nevertheless,  it  demands  that 
the  unions,  as  in  the  capitalist  state,  should  have  the  right  to 
strike  and  that  they  should  be  free  from  the  state. 

The  opposition  of  the  anarcho-syndicalists  shows  itself  in 
several  different  unions.  Among  these  we  may  mention:  the 
bakery  workers'  unions  in  Moscow  as  well  as  several  clubs  of 
anarcho-syndicalists,  which  function  as  propaganda  centers  inside 
the  industrial  organizations  of  the  workers  of  all  occupations.  This 
is  a  trade  union  opposition,  whose  form  of  organization  corre- 
sponds to  the  Danish  Trade  Union  Opposition.  The  position  of 
this  trade  union  opposition  towards  the  central  unions  is  not  like 
that  of  the  mensheviks,  but  of  a  radical  nature.  The  leading 
ideas  of  this  opposition  come  from  the  anarcho-syndicalist  world 
conception,  which  against  Marxist  bolshevism  raises  the  theory 
of  libertarian  socialism,  and  against  state  communism  the  theory 
of  anti-state  communism.  On  this  ground  they  combat  the  sub- 
ordination of  the  unions  to  political  parties,  generally,  and  to  the 
state  in  particular.  They  point  to  the  workers'  loss  of  interest  in 
their  unions,  which  has  resulted  from  the  changing  of  the  unions 
into  state  organs.  This  change  tends  to  destroy  the  free  develop- 
ment of  the  worker,  and  is  dangerous  to  the  social  revolution.  Ac- 
cording to  them  the  workers  have,  through  the  change  of  the 
unions  into  state  organs,  come  under  the  control  of  the  ruling 
party,  while  the  sense  of  the  social  revolution  is  that  the  workers 
should  be  economic  masters.  Briefly,  against  the  "statifying" 
of  the  unions  they  propose  the  syndicalization  of  the  state,  i.  e., 
the  dissolution  of  the  state  functions  into  functions  of  economic 
organizations.  (In  principle  the  bolsheviks  agree  with  the  syn- 
dicalists on  this  point,  f.  i.  Lozovsky  in  his  pamphlet  on  the  Rus- 
sian unions.  But  they  hold  that  this  should  be  deferred  to  a  later 
time;  now,  during  the  dictatorship,  it  is  not  to  be  thought  of,  in 
their  opinion.) 

But  as  they  thought  that  the  rise  of  such  tendencies  would 
weaken  the  rule  of  the  proletarian  party,  they  see  a  danger  in  it 
and  combat  it.  The  syndicalists,  consequently,  see  a  danger  in  the 

62 


"statifying"  of  the  unions  and  the  communist-bolsheviks  see  a 
danger  in  the  syndicalization  of  the  state.  But  the  bolsheviks 
admit  that  development  is  bound  to  go  in  the  direction  in  which 
the  syndicalists  are  driving.  These  ideas  of  the  anarcho-syndical- 
ists are  also  supported  by  so-called  industrialists.  The  industrial- 
ists also  object  to  the  supremacy  of  the  state  over  the  unions  and 
demand  self-determination  and  autonomy  and  independence  of  the 
state.  In  Petrograd  this  tendency  was  quite  strongly  represented 
this  summer  of  1920,  and  the  presiding  officer  of  the  Petrograd 
Soviet,  Zinovieff,  who  is  also  known  as  the  chairman  of  the  Ex- 
ecutive Committee  of  the  III.  International,  was  then  strenuously 
combatting  this  tendency. 

The  union  demand  for  independence  from  the  party  as  well  as 
of  the  state  lately  showed  itself  also  among  the  party-communist 
unions.  At  the  railroad  workers  congress  in  the  summer  of  1920, 
when  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  union  was  elected,  consist- 
ing of  20  men,  one  half  stood  for  the  independence  of  the  unions, 
that  is,  they  favored  giving  the  unions  the  last  word  in  union  af- 
fairs and  not  the  party.  And  still  all  of  the  elected  were  party 
members.  Persons  not  members  of  the  Communist  Party  cannot 
be  elected  to  the  executive  committee  of  any  union.  As  this  execu- 
tive committee  now  was  to  elect  a  chairman,  they  could  not  agree, 
being  that  ten  of  them  belonged  to  one  tendency  while  ten  were 
of  the  other  tendency,  and  each  tendency,  naturally,  wanted  one 
of  their  own  as  a  chairman.  As  will  appear  from  this  the  aver- 
sion of  the  union  men  against  being  ruled  by  a  party  is  on  the  in- 
crease. But  in  the  same  measure  as  this  takes  place  the  syndical- 
ist and  industrialist  ideas  gain  influence,  and  these  demand  the 
absolute  independence  from  the  party  for  the  unions. 

Due  to  the  sovereignty  of  the  party  over  the  unions,  no  actions 
are  permitted  the  unions  which  are  against  the  party.  As  it  also 
is  the  party  which  has  the  rudder  of  state  in  its  hands,  every  at- 
tack of  the  unions  which  is  directed  against  the  party,  is  also  di- 
rected against  the  state,  and  vice  versa. 

Thus  there  was,  as  an  instance,  a  strike  of  bakers  in  Moscow. 
The  bakers  demanded  a  larger  bread  ration.  Up  to  that  time  they 
had  had  the  same  quantity  as  the  population  of  Moscow,  that  is, 
1  Ib.  or  400  grams  daily  (.88  Ib.  American  weight).  But  the  mili- 
tary bakers  had  4  Ibs.  of  bread  daily,  that  being  the  military  ra- 
tion. Now  the  other  bakers  demanded  just  as  much.  Their  de- 
mand would  have  been  more  just  if  they  had  taken  the  stand  that 
the  military  should  also  have  received  no  more  than  1  Ib.  The 
strike  does  not  bear  testimony  of  a  high  moral  level.  The  govern- 
ment, naturally,  did  not  accede  to  the  demands  of  the  bakers,  and 
the  bakers  struck.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  secretary  of  the  union 
of  the  bakers  was  an  anarcho-syndicalist,  by  the  name  of  N.  Pav- 
lov. The  measures  which  the  government  took  in  the  matter  are 
reported  in  the  "Pravda"  of  June  19,  1920,  in  the  following  man- 
ner: "The  plenary  meeting  of  the  unions  took  up  the  matter  in 
their  capacity  of  a  government  organ.  Comrade  Melnitschansky, 

63 


the  chairman  of  the  Moscow  Council  of  the  unions,  reported  on  the 
case  and  said  that  the  investigation  had  shown,  that  the  influence 
of  the  anarcho-syndicalists  were  strongly  apparent  among  the 
bakers.  A  complete  report  by  Comrade  Melnitschansky  appeared 
in  No.  125  of  the  "Pravda."  The  meeting  thereupon  adopted  the 
following  resolution :  Due  to  the  systematic  abuse  and  breach  of 
union  discipline  by  the  members  of  the  union  committee  of  the 
Moscow  bakers,  it  was  decided  to  dissolve  the  section  of  the  Mos- 
cow bakers  and  include  the  bakers  in  the  union  of  the  foodstuff 
workers.  The  members  of  the  former  committee  of  the  section  of 
the  bakers'  union,  N.  Pavlov,  Kameschov,  Nuschenkov,  Vurgov 
and  Komsnitzov  are  excluded  from  the  union  movement  and  shall, 
furthermore,  be  held  to  answer  before  a  judiciary  board.  They 
lose  their  right  to  speak  before  any  assembly  and  can  never  more 
be  elected  to  a  responsible  post  in  the  unions." 

Naturally,  other  conflicts  occur  in  the  union  movement,  such 
as  strikes,  insubordination,  etc.  But  the  mentioning  of  one  con- 
flict is  sufficient  to  make  us  understand  that  friction  and  conflicts 
can  occur  even  in  the  Russian  unions,  and  first  of  all,  also  between 
the  individual  unions  and  the  government,  just  as  in  other  capit- 
alist states.  But  which  of  the  different  tendencies  shall  finally 
gain  the  upper  hand  is  not  difficult  to  say;  very  plainly  the  one 
that  uses  the  slogan,  that  in  the  unions  all  power  shall  belong  to 
the  unions,  being  that  the  workers  want  to  finally  make  them- 
selves independent  and  establish  the  rights  of  labor.  The  ten- 
dency which  says  that  the  state  shall  go  up  in  the  unions  shal 
finally  conquer,  because  the  workers  feel  most  free  through  su< ~ 
a  victory. 

Even  if  the  Russian  anarcho-syndicalists,  anarchists  and  in- 
dustrialists as  well  as  all  other  revolutionists  have  every  reason  ii 
the  world  to  work  on  the  unions  until  the  whole  system  answei 
the  demands  of  communism,  we  must  not  for  a  moment  forget  th( 
progress  implied  in  the  fact  that  the  workers  have  come  so  fc 
as  to  organize  the  work  through  their  own  organizations  a/i 
thereby  the  whole  of  industry.  The  progress  lies  in  the  victory  o) 
the  idea,  and  even  if  the  idea  has  not  yet  been  completely  realized, 
we  have  not  the  right,  as  friends  of  progress,  to  reject  the  firsl 
imperfect  beginnings.  In  comparison  to  the  idea  of  czarism,  th( 
offensive  taken  by  the  labor  organizations,  the  unions,  as  produc- 
tive organizations,  is  quite  a  big  step  forward,  the  importance  of 
which  we  cannot  to-day  sufficiently  appreciate.  To  set  the  real 
value  on  this  is  reserved  for  future  generations.  In  the  same  man- 
ner that  we  look  at  the  French  revolution  at  the  end  of  the  18tl 
century  as  a  gigantic  step  forward,  in  spite  of  the  despotism  o1 
Napoleon,  which  was  not  surpassed  by  the  despotism  of  Louij 
XVI.,  for  the  fruits  of  the  revolution,  the  abolition  of  serfdom, 
could  not  be  undone,  just  so  we  greet  the  Russian  revolution, 
spite  of  the  rule  of  the  bolsheviks.  For,  after  all,  the  bolshevil 
are  not  for  the  Russian  revolution  what  Napoleon  was  for  th< 
French  revolution;  but  they  are,  if  we  want  to  accept  the  com- 

64 


parison,  the  Russian  Jacobins,  with  a  strong  admixture  of  prole- 
tarian elements.  But  the  spirit  of  progress  lives  in  the  realization 
of  the  idea,  that  the  workers  can,  through  their  own  organizations, 
themselves  form  a  society  which  is  based  on  labor.  As  revolution- 
aries and  champions  of  freedom  we  approve  of  the  Russian  revo- 
lution, approve  of  the  idea  that  the  labor  unions  have  to  be  the 
guides  of  economic  life,  and  will  guarantee  that  these  ideas  shall 
be  realized  with  ever  greater  perfection.  Thus  shall  our  ideal,  a 
society  based  upon  labor,  attain  its  realization. 


Nationalization  or  Socialization? 

The  difference  betiveen  nationalization  and  socialization  is 
often  very  fine,  especially  where  it  is  a  question  of  industrial  un- 
dertakings. When  referring  to  the  land  it  is  simpler.  In  Russia 
we  can  on  the  whole  speak  of  a  socialization  of  the  soil.  Its  dis- 
tinguishing marks  are  that  the  land  belongs  to  the  peasants  per- 
sonally, but  that  they  have  not  the  legal  right  to  sell  it.  That  this 
happens  here  and  there,  in  spite  of  it,  only  shows  that  new  forms 
of  economic  life  cannot  be  introduced  through  decrees  alone. 
Leases  and  rents  have  ceased  to  exist,  and  the  only  thing  that 
remains  are  taxes,  principally  in  kind.  Part  of  the  former  large 
estates  have  passed  over  into  state  ownership,  and  in  the  case  of 
these  one  might  speak  of  nationalization  rather  than  socialization. 
What  applies  to  these  state  lands  also  applies  to  the  nationalized 
("statified")  industrial  undertakings.  The  state  monopolized  the 
mines,  the  means  of  transportation,  the  larger  part  of  the  big 
factories,  commerce  and  business  houses.  While  formerly  these 
undertakings  belonged  to  a  great  number  of  small  industrial 
knights,  and  partly  also  to  a  small  number  of  big  "captains  of 
industry  (comparable  to  Stinnes  in  Germany),  all  of  it  belongs  to- 
day to  one  owner,  the  state.  But  here  we  have  before  us  some- 
thing more  than  a  simple  nationalization.  In  Germany  we  had 
already  under  the  Wilhelm  regime  nationalized  railroads  and 
postal  service.  Even  in  America  the  railroads  were  to  a  great  ex- 
tent nationalized  during  the  war.  But  this  kind  of  nationalization 
differs  from  the  Russian  kind  in  this  respect  that  private  per* 
sons  have  economic  interest  in  the  same.  The  state  issues  notes 
and  debt  obligations  and  the  owners  of  these  obligations  or  bonds 
enjoy  an  income  without  work  by  collecting  interest,  etc.  The  state 
has  here,  so  to  speak,  taken  over  the  role  of  a  capitalist  stock  com- 
pany. The  same  is  often  the  case  with  municipalization.  In  the 
latter  case  the  municipal  authorities  of  the  cities  play  this  role. 

This  has  been  abolished  in  Russia.  The  Russian  Soviet  gov- 
ernment writes  out  no  obligations  and  has  cancelled  all  capitalist 
claims.  In  relation  to<  foreign  countries  the  procedure  has  not 
been  altogether  consistent.  Through  the  present  concession  policy 
to  the  capitalist  states,  the  soviet  republic  has — right  or  wrong — 
gone  back  to  a  more  primitive  form  of  private  economy. 

65 


The  difference  between  the  nationalization  in  capitalist  states 
and  in  'Soviet  Russia  is  plain.  But  is  this  difference  so  great  that 
it  runs  into  socialization? 

In  order  to  be  able  to  answer  these  questions  we  must  firsi 
make  up  our  mind  what  is  to  be  understood  by  socialization.    If 
the  economic  life  is  completely  cut  off  from  the  state  as  an  organ- 
ization of  power,  then  we  can  speak  of  socialization.     But  the 
problem  may  be  stated  differently.    To  some  English  guild  social 
ists  the  state  is  the  organization  of  the  consumers  under  com 
pletely  independent  democracy  or  self-government  for  industry 
To  other  guild  socialists,  such  as  S.  G.  Hobson,  the  state  is  an  in 
stitution  which  has  nothing  to  do  with  economic  life,  not  even 
with  consumption.    For  that  reason  we  cannot  say  that  the  guik 
socialists  strive  for  a  nationalization  ( Verstaatlichung) ,  but  wha 
they  want  is  a  socialization,  that  is  a  transfer  of  production  an< 
consumption  to  the  organizations  for  production  and  consump 
tion. 

//  we\  put  on  this  measuring  stick,  then  we  cannot  speak  o 
any  socialization  in  Russia  as  yet,  but  of  nationalization   (Ver 
staatlichung) .    When  the  factories,  mines  and  means  of  transpor- 
tation, that  is,  what  is  included  under  the  name  industry,  Is  not 
directly  in  the  hands  of  the  productive  organizations  but  belong 
to  the  state,  then  we  must  speak  of  a  ("Verstaatlichung")  nation- 
alization even  if  it  is  of  a  different    kind    from    what    it    is    in 
the  capitalist  countries. 

But  looked  at  from  another  side  we  must  refrain  from  con- 
sidering the  economic  system  of  Russia  as  a  socialist  system. 
Nationalization  changes  nothing  in  the  wage  system.  With  the 
thought  of  socialization  we  connect  at  the  same  time  the  abolition 
of  the  wage  system.  But  in  Russia  we  still  have  the  wage  system. 
The  circumstance  that  they  pay  is  partly  in  kind  and  that  an  at- 
tempt is  made  to  further  develop  this  pay  system  may  be  traced 
to  the  enormous  depreciation  of  the  currency.  They  made  a  virtue 
out  of  necessity.  With  the  abolition  of  the  wage  system  social 
equality  is  attained.  But  this  social  or,  more  strictly  speaking, 
economic  equality  we  do  not  find  in  Russia  as  yet.  We  can,  conse- 
quently, not  speak  of  socialization  but  we  must  speak  of  national- 
ization ("Verstaatlichung"). 

The  last  expression  is  being  used  by  the  bolsheviks  them- 
selves. But  this  expression  is  not  altogether  correct.  For  just  as 
there  are  national  states  and  nationalities,  so  there  is  also  a  dif- 
ference here.  In  the  large  country  of  Russia,  there  is  not  only  one 
nation  but  many.  The  wealth  consisting  in  land  and  industry, 
which  is  worked  by  many  nationalities,  is  put  under  the  sover- 
eignty of  a  state,  the  bolshevik  government.  From  this  point  of 
View,  also,  the  expression  "Verstaatlichung"  (statification  or  stat- 
ization)  is  the  most  exact. 

One  question  that  here  interests  us  more  is  whether  all  es- 
tablishments, factories,  shops,  mines,  means  of  transportation, 

66 


business  houses,  etc.,  are  included  in  the  nationalization.  Accord- 
ing to  the  observations  I  have  personally  made,  as  well  as  accord- 
ing to  the  statistics  of  the  Soviet  government,  the  success  in  this 
regard  is  only  partial.  Thus,  according  to  statistics  given  by  Mil- 
jutin,  a  member  of  presiding  board  of  the  Supreme  Council  of  Na- 
tional Economy,  the  number  of  nationalized  establishments  up  to 
Feb.  1,  1920,  was:  In  the  stone  industry  437  establishments  with- 
106  109  workers.  Against  these  stood  561  establishments,  not  na- 
tionalized. In  mining  and  smelting  nationalization's  carried  out 
almost  completely.  There  are  only  six  small  establishments  of  that 
kind  in  which  not  more  than  480  workers  are  employed.  Against 
these  stand  81  establishments  with  together  39,880  workers  that 
are  nationalized. 

In  the  metal  and  machinery  industry,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
number  of  establishments  which  even  to-day  are  privately  owned 
is  particularly  great.  There  are  together  601  establishments  with 
29,417  workers  not  nationalized.  But  these  statistics  cannot  lay 
claim  to  completeness.  I  know  of  a  foundry  in  Moscow  which  be- 
longs to  a  private  owner,  Pirvitz,  which  I  do  not  find  included  in 
the  statistics.  And  still  106  workers  are  employed  there.  Against 
these  private  establishments  stand  553  nationalized  ones  which 
employ  156,146  workers. 

In  the  food  stuff  industry  there  are  638  establishments  with 
3,532  workers  which  are  still  privately  owned.  Against  them  stand 
1,799  establishments  with  151*699  workers  that  are  nationalized. 
In  the  establishments  for  manufacture  of  animal  products  over 
one-third  of  the  workers  of  that  industry  are  still  in  private  serv- 
ice. They  number  10,711  workers,  working  in  2,226  establish- 
ments, while  32,979  workers  are  employed  in  195  nationalized  es- 
tablishments. In  the  textile  industry,  which  before  the  war  be- 
longed to  the  highest  developed  industries  of  Russia,  there  are 
now  232  establishments  with  36,664  workers  still  in  private  hands, 
while  615  establishments  with  337,346  workers  are  nationalized. 
To  these  belongs  also  the  ready-made  clothing  branch. 

According  to  the  same  statistics  there  are  still  in  all  Russia, 
985,413  workers  ivho  work  in  4,237  state  establishments  and  84,- 
853workers  who  work  in  4,609  private  establishments. 

From  these  statistics  we  can  gather  that  the  larger  establish- 
ments are  mostly  nationalized  while  the  smaller  are  still  privately 
owned.  These  statistics,  however,  apply  only  to  industry  or  pro- 
duction, but  say  nothing  about  the  business  houses.  These  were 
closed  nearly  without  exception.  To-day  one  may  still  see  shut- 
and-sealed  stores  in  Moscow  and  Petrograd,  in  whose  show  win- 
dows everything  still  lies  as  it  did  before  it  was  confiscated.  The 
confiscation  was  so  poorly  organized  that  it  is  still  not  known  ex- 
actly what  has  been  confiscated.  Frequently  articles  of  clothing 
are  booked  as  hardware,  or  kitchen  utensils  as  furniture.  But 
the  worst  is,  that  even  in  case  of  the  most  urgent  necessity  the 
people  can  get  nothing.  Thus  a  fellow  worker  in  Petrograd  asked 
me  to  get  him  a  rubber  nipple  from  Germany  for  his  little  daugh- 

67 


ter's  milk  bottle.  He  said:  "We  have  this  article  in  our  confis- 
cated stores  but  it  is  impossible  to  get  anything.  The  mensheviks 
also  reproach  the  bolsheviks  that  they  undertook  the  so-called  na- 
tionalization without  thorough  preparations.  They  say  that  the 
stores  were  closed  before  other  organs  were  created  which  could 
have  undertaken  to  supply  the  people.  They  themselves,  the  men- 
sheviks, would  have  done  this  in  a  more  deliberate  and  slow  way. 
They  are  not  so  radical  but  more  moderate. 

A  little  exception  was  made  for  vegetable  and  delicatessen 
stores.  There  are  very  few  of  the  latter.  But  the  former  one 
finds  in  every  block. 

Trust  Building  or  Trustification 

The  monopolization  and  nationalization  of  industry  abolished 
the  competition  existing  in  small  capitalist  industry.    Industry  be- 
came concentrated  and  centralized.    Great  state  trusts  came  into 
existence.     Compared  with  the  private  capitalist  enterprise,   in 
which  production  for  the  profit  of  individuals  or  stock  companies 
is  carried  on  in  quite  meaningless  and  unregulated  fashion,  pro- 
duction by  a  single  organization,  even  if  it  is  capitalistic,  is  to  be 
greeted  as  a  step  forward,  because  it  can  then  be  carried  on  in  a 
more  rational  manner.    The  advantage  is  so  much  greater  if  the 
motive  of  production  is  not  profit,  but  the  needs  of  the  nation. 
But  here  it  must  be  remembered  that  care  should  be  taken  thai 
the  liberty  of  individuals,  of  the  producers,  is  not  lost,  for  in  the 
measure  that  liberty  is  infringed  upon,  progress  is  impeded.   Yes, 
it  may  go  so  far  that,  through  unequal  compensation  for  service 
rendered,  in  a  society  where  nationalization,  as  well  as  the  trusti- 
faction  of  the  whole  national  industry  has  been  fully  carried  out, 
even  while  the  production  for  use  is  the  basic  plan — it  may  go  s< 
far,  we  say,  that  the  position  of  deep  layers  of  the  workers  is  no1 
better  than  it  is  under  private  capitalism.    Or,  expressing  it  in 
different     manner:      The     state    socialism     introduced    press( 
(through    the    premium    system  such  as  is  used  in  Russia)   th< 
workers  down  in  the  same    disagreeable    position    as    capitalisi 
did.    This  system  may  be  called  state  capitalism,  and  historicall: 
it  may  be  pointed  out  as  a  higher  stage;  but  as  for  the  workei 
who  labor  in  the  factory  the  social  revolution  must  bring  th< 
an  improvement  in  their  position,  for  the  aim  of  the  social  rev< 
lution  is  the  liberation  of  the  working  class. 

The  workers  who>  by  means  of  the  revolution  desired  to  rea- 
lize their  own  emancipation,  felt  instinctively  that  they  must  di- 
rect their  efforts  on  taking  over  production  and  managing  il 
according  to  their  own  principles.  They  also  elected  shop  commit- 
tees to  manage  the  shops.  The  shops  independently  managed 
those  workers  ivho  work  in  the  shops,  that  is  how  the  Russiai. 
workers  first  pictured  to  themselves  the  socialization  of  industry, 
or  the  realization  of  the  social  revolution. 

68 


But  the  Communist  Party  of  Russia  considered  this  tendency 
of  the  workers  only  as  the  first  and  lowest  form.  On  Dec.  5,  1917, 
the  Supreme  Council  of  National  Economy  was  founded.  The 
management  of  the  factories  was  thereafter  more  and  more 
twisted  out  of  the  workers'  hands.  The  Supreme  Council  of  Na- 
tional Economy  took  over  this  task.  This  S.  C.  of  N.  E.  should 
properly  not  be  anything  but  the  co-ordiriation  of  all  the  establ- 
ishments from  the  bottom  upward,  with  •  retention  of  the  inde- 
pendent shop  management  by  the  workers.  But  what  came  was 
something  else.  The  S.  C.  of  N.  E.  is  an  institution  which  man- 
ages the  industry  of  the  country  from  the  top  downward. 

The  Supreme  Council  of  National  Economy  consists  of  11  per- 
sons. The  president's  name  is  Rykoff.  He  is  appointed  by  the 
All-Russian  Executive  Committee.  The  rest  of  the  members  are, 
in  part,  nominated  by  the  Central  Council  of  the  Unions  and  finally 
appointed  by  the  Council  of  People's  Commissars.  This  Council 
of  the  People's  Commissars  can  at  any  time  cancel  the  decisions 
of  the  Economic  Council,  so  that  the  Council  of  People's  Commis- 
sars, a  political  institution  which  consists  principally  of  commun- 
ists, has  the  last  word.  Miljutin,  a  member  of  the  Supreme  Coun- 
cil of  National  Economy,  mentioned  in  an  interview  with  me  that 
all  important  questions  must  be  submitted  to  the  Council  of  Peo- 
ple's Commissars.  Also  there  are  tendencies  to  still  more  cen- 
tralize the  council,  instead  of  decentralizing  it,  after  the  end  of  all 
wars,  thus  allowing  the  state  to  get  a  grip  on  the  whole  economic 
life. 

....  The  Supreme  Council  of  National  Economy  has  a  special  de- 
partment for  each  industry.  There  are  50  of  them.  Each  one  of 
these  departments  manages  a  separate  branch  of  industry.  Mil- 
jutin described  their  activity  as  follows :  They  carry  out  the  plans 
of  production,  distribute  the  raw  materials,  keep  account  of  what 
is  being  produced  and  finance  the  undertakings.  Besides  they  en- 
gage and  discharge  the  management  of  the  shops.  The  manage- 
ment of  such  an  industrial  department  consists  of  one,  three  or 
five  persons,  which  are  appointed  by  the  Supreme  Council  of  Na- 
tional Economy,  after  consultation  w'fbh  the  unions. 

It  would  take  us  too  far  to  follow  up  the  various  functions 
more  closely  into  the  gouvernement  or  local  district  management. 
They  are  all  built  on  the  same  principle.  And  it  is  sufficient  for 
us  to  know  the  principle.  But  the  principle  is  consistently  carried 
out  from  the  top  downward,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  above.  The 
organization  from  the  bottom  upward  does  not  exist  in  industry, 
and  for  that  reason  there  is  no  talk  of  self-government.  The 
workers  have  no  direct  influence,  yes,  in  practice  they  have  no  in- 
fluence at  all,  not  even  indirect,  over  the  management  of  industry, 
or  the  shop  and  the  factory  in  which  they  work. 

The  workers  get  their  wages  paid  through  the  Finance  De- 
partment of  the  Supreme  Council  of  National  Economy.  Even  the 
prices  are  set  on  the  goods  by  the  S.  C.  of  N.  E.  and  thereafter 
made  into  a  law. 

69 


The  staff  of  officials  of  the  Supreme  Council  of  National 
Economy  is  in  Moscow,  which  is  the  centre  for  all  Russia,  and  con- 
sists of  20,000  persons.  Besides  there  are,  according  to  the  state- 
ments of  Miljutin,  35  local  councils  and  each  one  of  these  has 
2,000  employees.  This  would  give  a  total  of  90,000  employees. 
According  to  the  figures  given  before  there  are  in  the  nationalized 
industries  985,414  employees,  or  in  round  numbers  one  million. 
There  is,  consequently, 'about  one  official  for  each  ten  workers. 

This  apparatus,  as  at  presently  constituted,  works  heavily 
rather  than  elastically.  For  many  purposes  it  cannot  be  used. 
And  we  should  not  wonder  at  this.  A  political  body,  which 
in  the  last  instance  depends  upon  the  All-Russian  Executive  Com- 
mittee, cannot  function  on  the  economic  field  like  a  purely  eco- 
nomic organization  of  hand  and  brain  workers,  which  are  in 
straight  line  with  one  another  or  alongside  of  one  another. 

They  have  also  come  to  feel  that  way  in  Russia,  so  that  they 
turn  to  private  undertakings  when  it  is  a  question  of  work  that 
requires  quick  and  prompt  attention.  In  pointing  this  out,  I  am 
merely  stating  facts,  but  nevertheless,  it  is  by  no  means  proven 
that  capitalism  is  indispensable  or  has  any  advantages.  It  only 
proves  that  this  kind  of  state  socialism,  which  was  started  in 
Russia  under  such  unfavorable  conditions,  has  not  the  power  tc 
live;  there  might  very  well  be  other  socialist  economic  forms 
'which  are  so  much  the  more  rational.  But  the  fact  that  in  Russia 
the  few  private  undertakings  have  a  superior  capacity  for  work, 
can  be  traced  to  the  circumstance  that  the  private  undertakings 
pay  their  workers  better  than  the  state  enterprises.  In  the  al- 
ready mentioned  iron  foundry  in  Moscow,  belonging  to  Pirvitz, 
the  workers  are  a  good  deal  better  off  than  in  the  Soviet  shops. 
A  commercial  and  technical  employee,  a  Miss  Wegener,  receives, 
for  instance,  free  board  and  lodging,  the  usual  Payok  (food  stuff 
ration)  and,  like  all  the  people  of  Moscow,  free  apartment  and 
15,000  rubles.  According  to  her  own  statement  she  is  far  better 
off  than  in  Soviet  service,  in  which  she  was  formerly  working,  and 
works  with  greater  interest.  The  same  thing  applies  to  the  work- 
ers. Another  case  may  contribute  still  more  to  illustrating  what; 
we  have  said.  As  the  supplying  of  fuel  did  not  work  satisfac- 
torily in  years  past  a  certain  official  was  given  free  hands.  He 
engaged  private  persons  and  workers  who  under  better  conditions 
got  the  necessary  railroad  cars  ready  much  quicker,  and  as  a  re- 
sult the  transportation  took  place  much  quicker.  Still  more  such 
examples  could  be  cited.  The  bolsheviks  themselves  constantly 
complain  of  the  slowness  of  their  apparatus,  and  particularly 
the  last  party  conferences  as  well  as  at  the  soviet  congresses, 
complaints  are  piling  up. 

In  consideration  of  the  sad  condition  in  which  industry  fin< 
itself  the  dissatisfaction  of  the  ruling  bolsheviks  is  easy  to  undei 
stand,  and  if  they  give  the  ideas  of  syndicalism  such  great  coi 
cessions  as  to  have  for  chairman  of  the  Supreme  Council  of  N 
tional  Economy,  Rykov,  a  representative  of  the  syndicalist  ideas- 

70 


and  that  is  the  case  not  with  him  alone  but  in  most  of  the  leading 
circles — this  can  largely  be  ascribed  to  the  bankruptcy  from  which 
their  own  theories  of  state  socialism  have  suffered,  and  which  is 
most  evident  in  the  organization  of  industry.  Already  in  the  year 
of  1918,  the  first  year  of  bolshevik  power,  Mnogin,  the  commissar 
of  the  textile  department  of  the  S.  C.  of  N.  E.,  wrote  in  No.  40 
of  the  "Isvestija,"  that  the  Russian  Soviet  Republic  did  not  need 
any  unions  but  only  small  factory  committees  which  had  to  carry 
out  the  orders  of  the  government.  To-day,  when  they  see  that  in- 
dustry cannot  get  into  a  flourishing  state  through  "governing," 
they  have  finally  found  the  road  to  the  unions.  As  cheering  as  this 
is,  so  regrettable  is  it,  on  the  other  side,  that  through  the  state 
tendencies  of  the  state  socialists  the  ruinous  way  of  nationaliza- 
tion was  entered  upon,  and  is  in  practice  still  followed.  If 
industry  is  not  to  suffer  further  collapse,  the  bolsheviks  must  soon 
make  a  reality  of  the  now  recognized  theory,  turn  over  production 
to  the  productive  organs  the  workers  possess  in  their  unions, 
under  complete  self-administration  of  the  factories  by  those  em- 
ployed there,  and  not  by  individual  managers  put  in  by  the 
Supreme  Council  of  National  Economy. 

He  who  comes  with  the  expectations  of  finding  communism 
can  get  very  little  satisfaction  from  the  conditions  in  Russia.  But 
even  he,  who  only  hopes  for  a  little  improvement  of  economic  life 
will,  as  we  have  seen,  find  little  to  cheer  him  in  Russia.  Those  in 
power  at  present  repeatedly  give  as  a  reason  for  this  the  long  dura- 
tion of  the  war,  the  world  war  and  the  civil  war.  Without  doubt 
this  is  one  of  the  main  causes.  But  as  this  is  being  sung  so  often 
and  always  in  a  new  fashion  by  the  bolsheviks,  a  repetition  would 
be  tedious.  For  it  is  equally  certain  that  other  factors  of  prin- 
ciple, tactics  and  organization  play  a  role  in  this  respect. 

One  of  these  factors  is  the  principle  of  political  centralism, 
which  is  given  such  limitless  praise  by  the  bolsheviks.  This  prin- 
ciple, which  is  being  lauded  by  Radek,  Trotzky  and  all  leaders  of 
bolshevism  as  the  best  ripened  fruit  on  the  tree  of  socialist  de- 
velopment, has,  nevertheless,  had  a  truly  devastating  influence  on 
economic  life,  and  this  is  the  case  up  to  the  present  day.  For  that 
reason  the  songs  of  praise  sung  to  centralism  by  the  bolsheviks 
must  with  necessity  wind  up  in  a  lugubrious  wail  due  to  the  facts 
of  the  economic  collapse.  And  the  most  sparkling  dialectics  of 
Radek  and  Trotzky  cannot  hide  their  character  of  hollow  dema- 
goguery.  I  cannot  here  keep  from  using  the  words  "hollow  dema- 
goguery"  when  reading  in  what  a  dirty,  genuinely  Marx-Engels 
way,  Radek  attacks  Bertrand  Russel  in  his  provoking  effusions: 
"Bertrand  Russel's  Sentimental  Trip  to  Russia."  In  that  work 
one  can,  in  fact,  find  nothing  but  pure  demagoguery.  Against 
Russel's  sincere  descriptions  Radek  brings  up  no  facts,  but  only 
writes  about  "Russel's  slippers  by  the  hot  stove."  With  this  he 
may  be  able  to  impress  his  Russian  worshipers,  but  not  thinking 
people,  and  certainly  not  the  working  class  of  the  world.  This 
reference  to  the  tactics  of  the  bolshevik  theoreticians  has  here 

71 


been  made  only  to  show  what  value  should  be  put  on  their  arj 
ments. 

We  need  not  enter  into  a  theoretical  discussion  of  the  prii 
ciples  of  centralism.  It  is  sufficient  in  this  connection  to  show 
how,  with  the  principle  of  centralism  as  a  fundamental  principle 
of  organization,  the  economic  life  does  not  prosper,  how  the  free 
development  of  private  initiative  is  completely  suppressed  and 
how  economic  life  has  suffered  from  it  in  an  unspeakable  man- 
ner. 

Already  in  treating  of  the  agricultural  question  we  have  seen 
from  examples  quoted  that,  through  the  policy  applied  by  the 
Communist  Party  and  the  situation  resulting  therefrom,  the  area 
of  cultivated  land  has  diminished.  At  the  VIII.  All-Russian  Soviet 
Congress  interesting  proofs  of  this  were  added.  In  industry  it  is 
not  much  better.  Of  the  1,191  metal  works  in  Russia  only  300 
are  running.  Only  20%  of  the  pig  iron  of  peace  production  is 
being  worked.  The  food  stuffs  industry  has  also  gone  down  con- 
siderably. In  a  steam  mill  in  Samara  there  were  before  the  war 
18,000  pud  of  flour  milled  per  day,  but  now  only  5,000-6,000  pud. 
In  the  whole  Samara  gouvernement  there  were  60  million  pud 
grain  produced  before  the  war,  but  now  only  20  million  pud.  These 
figures  show  an  extra-ordinary  decrease  of  production,  to  which 
we  may  seek  the  causes  where  we  will. 

The  Home  Workers  and  Their  Co-operative  Societies  or 

Artels 

Besides  the  nationalized  establishments  which  are  managed 
by  the  Supreme  Council  of  National  Economy,  the  structure 
and  functions  of  which  we  have  already  considered,  there  is 
a  second  kind  of  socialized  production.  These  are  the  joint  labor 
societies  of  Russian  peasants  and  independent  home  workers,  whicn 
are  called  artels.  The  ku&tar  is  an  industrial  home  worker,  a 
poor  peasant  or  a  small  artisan.  These  small  people  band  to- 
gether in  a  joint  labor  society,  buy  their  products  in  common  and 
deliver  their  finished  products  to  their  societies.  This  society  or 
artel  takes  over  the  selling  of  the  products  and  supplies  the  artisan 
at  the  same  time  with  raw  material  and  working  tools. 

As  this  society  in  no  way  can  be  considered  a  capitalist  com- 
pany but  purely  as  a  banding  together  of  voluntarily  working  in- 
dividuals, the  bolshevik  government  has  been  unable  to  destroy 
these  joint  labor  groups.  Peter  Kropotkin  takes  a  friendly  posi- 
tion towards  these  labor  societies  and  wrote  for  their  paper,  at  the 
time  I  was  in  Russia,  several  articles  and  letters  for  their  con- 
gress. These  joint  labor  societies  are  no  exploiting  organizations, 
but  during  the  czarist  period  they  had  to  suffer  from  oppression 
by  the  big  capitalists  just  as  the  factory  workers  did.  Now  they 
are  also  hit  by  the  compulsory  policy  of  the  Soviet  government* 
Thus,  in  Moscow,  the  central  of  all  the  artels  was  dissolved,  and 
when  I  visited  it,  it  was  just  in  the  stage  of  liquidation. 

72 


But  a  number  of  artels  still  have  their  joint  organizations. 
[n  the  Moscow  society  98  shops  were  enrolled.  Affiliation  to  the 
irtel  is  done  by  the  family.  A  total  of  about  9,000  families  are 
enrolled  in  the  artels.  They  make  a  total  of  24,000  productive 
workers.  Among  these  are  700-800  larger  shops.  All  sorts  of 
aandicrafts  are  represented  in  these  artels.  The  product  consists 
pf  leather  goods,  saddles,  boots,  furniture,  combs,  brushes,  toys, 
jewelry,  textile  goods,  metal  goods,  papier-mache  goods,  wagons, 
leds,  valises,  school  material,  books  and  similar  goods.  For  the 
present  the  Soviet  government  is  delivering  raw  materials  to  the 
artels,  at  least  to  a  limited  extent.  The  society  supplies,  for  in- 
tance,  lumber  to  the  cabinet  makers  and  distributes  it  to  the 
ifferent  shops.  Payment  to  the  different  shops  differs  in  nature, 
ome  have  their  finished  articles  sold  by  the  society  for  their  ac- 
ount,  others  arrange  to  have  wages  paid  them  and  turn  the  sell- 
ng  over  to  the  society  without  reservations.  This  latter  is  the 
ase  in  some  of  the  larger  shops.  The  members  of  the  same  get 
wage  of  from  100  to  1,000  rubles  daily.  But  in  paying  the  wages 
t  is  taken  into  consideration  whether  the  member  has  property 
r  is  poor.  Thus,  to  cite  examples,  the  owners  of  a  little  farm  are 
aid  >a  little  less  than  those  who  have  nothing.  By  this  means  it 
s  sought  to  bridge  over  the  inequalities  of  wealth.  In  the  gouv- 
rnement  of  Moscow  there  are  many  peasants  who  are  members 
f  this  artel  society. 

The  first  artel  in  Moscow  came  into  existence  20  years  ago. 
n  other  gouvernements  the  artels  have  been  in  existence  since 
890.  So  far,  such  artels  exist  in  the  gouvernements  Moscow, 
Jaroslov,  Nischni-Novgorod,  Vladimir,  Thula  and  Kostroma.  The 
oviet  government  tried  to  nationalize  these  artels.  The  artisans 
and  peasants  belonging  to  them  were,  however,  opposed  to  this 
nationalization.  They  objected  to  have  their  central  exchange 
made  into  a  state  organ,  and  as  most  of  the  members  of  these 
artels  are  the  poorest  peasants,  the  government  uses  no  force  in 
order  to  carry  out  a  compulsory  nationalization. 

The  work  of  the  artisans  belonging  to  the  artel  societies 
amounts  to  50  railroad  cars  of  goods  per  month,  which  have  a 
value  of  250  million  rubles. 

The  society  pf  the  home  workers,  the  artel  of  the  "kustar- 
nije"  in  Russia,  is  apiece  of  socialist  life.  True,  it  is  no  large 
industry,  and  as  small  handicraft  it  has  something  narrow-mind- 
edly petit-bourgeois  over  it.  But  in  socialism  we  must  not  include 
only  the  technically  highest  developed  large  industry.  Socialist 
life  is  not  tied  to  the  forms  of  large  industry,  and  it  is  entirely 
absurd  to  wish  to  force  people,  in  the  name  of  socialism,  into  eco- 
nomic forms  which  are  considered  best  for  the  welfare  of  the 
state.  Socialism  means,  under  the  present  forms  of  technical  de- 
velopment, the  elimination  of  wage  slavery,  economic  equality  and 
equalizing  of  interests.  The  development  of  the  method  of  pro- 
duction to  more  rational  forms  can  thereafter  take  place  without 
hindrance,  but  under  no  circumstances  must  we  force  it  into  ex- 

73 


istence  at  the  cost  of  the  liberty  of  the  workers,  for  that  is  exactly 
what  the  capitalists  do.  Socialist  life  consists  in  the  side-by-side 
activities  of  voluntary  associations  of  workers.  Such  an  associa- 
tion is  the  Russian  artel.  If  it  is  not  yet  ideal,  still  it  is  a  start 
made  by  the  workers,  by  the  poor  who  work  for  their  living. 


Consumption 

It  is  a  truism  of  political  economy  that  the  quantity  of  goods 
used  depends  on  the  quantity  of  goods  produced.  In  conformity 
herewith  the  economic  doctrines  of  a  Marx,  principally,  have  laid 
the  chief  stress  on  the  conquest  of  production  by  the  workers.  If 
the  producers  are  in  possession  of  the  products  through  their  or- 
ganization, then  it  is  also  in  their  power  to  distribute  the  prod- 
ucts justly,  under  the  supposition  that  they  are  justice-loving, 
socialist  organizations. 

But  there  is  another  way  of  paving  the  way  for  socialism. 
It  is  true  that  the  working  class  as  a  whole  cannot  obtain  more 
than  the  quantity  of  products  that  is  turned  over  to  it  by  the  class 
that  is  master  of  production.  When  the  capitalists  weaken  the 
buying  power  of  the  workers  through  high  prices  and  low  wages, 
they  diminish  their  power  of  consumption.  When  the  workers 
organize  themselves  as  consumers  and  find  ways  and  means 
keep  the  prices  low,  then  they  are  also  in  a  position  to  increas< 
their  consumption.  Besides,  the  organization  of  workers  as  con- 
sumers carries  with  it  a  second  advantage.  Even  if  the  quantity 
of  products  which  the  working  class  as  a  whole  consumes  depen< 
upon  the  monopolists  of  production  and  the  means  they  employ 
the  workers  can  still  obtain  a  just  division  of  the  products  throu[ 
their  organizations  of  consumption.  And  this  also  is  a  piece  oJ 
socialism. 

The  workers  have  in  fact  organized  themselves  in  both  din 
tipns,  that  is,  as  producers  and  consumers.     They  have  trade  w. 
nions  and  consumers'  unions,  or  co-operative  societies,  as  t'l 
are  ulso  called.    That  is  also  fully  the  case  in  Russia. 

But  not  only  the  workers  and  poor  peasants  have  acknowl 
edged  the  necessity  of  organizing  consumption  in  the  interest  oJ 
all ;  even  the  state  was  forced  to  it  through  the  need  of  the  houi 
As  the  food  stuffs  became  ever  scarcer  as  a  result  of  the  war,  th< 
state,  which  led  the  nation  into  war,  could  no  longer  tolerate  thai 
the  necessary  food  stuffs  remained  objects  of  speculation.  The 
result  of  this  would  have  been  a  still  greater  famine  than  the: 
already  had  without  it,  and  this  would  have  had  a  bad  influenc< 
on  the  defense.  From  these  causes  sprang  national  husbandry  b\ 
force.^  The  governments  of  all  capitalist  states,  who  were  in  sue! 
a  position,  used  this  means.  Even  the  Russian  Soviet  governmenl 
saw  itself  compelled  to  resort  to  such  steps.  But  as  they,  in  ordei 
to  consistently  carry  out  husbandry  by  force,  would  have  beei 
compelled  to  have  a  large  apparatus,  which  It  was  not  able 

74 


stamp  out  of  the  ground  so  quickly,  they  used  for  this  purpose  the 
already  existing  consumers'  societies.  The  consumers'  societies 
were  nationalized. 

In  Russia,  conditions  are  on  many  points  entirely  different 
from  what  they  are  in  western  Europe.  Thus,  for  example,  the 
consumers'  union  movement  reached  a  stronger  and  higher  devel- 
opment than  the  trade  union  movement.  This  is  caused  by  Ihe 
fact  that  the  consumers'  unions  in  the  first  line  were  organiza- 
tions of  the  consumers.  The  peasants  had  no  need  for  organiza- 
tions of  production,  but  they  had  need  of  organizations  of  con- 
sumption. And  as  over  80%  of  the  population  of  Russia  are  peas- 
ants, so  were  also,  in  perfect  coincidence  herewith,  80%  of  the 
members  of  the  consumers'  societies  peasants. 

No  party  and  no  union  in  Russia  was  before  the  war  so 
powerful  as  the  Co-operative  movement.  The  Siberian  butter  pro- 
ducers united,  in  o>rder  to  sell  their  butter  in  common  to  Russia  or 
even  to  foreign  countries.  There  we  had  already  a  large  con- 
sumers' union  of  the  peasants,  which  later,  as  it  grew  larger,  also 
occupied  itself  with  other  products.  This  was  a  uniting  of  all  the 
above  mentioned  artels. — These  Siberian  unions  had  in  the  year 
of  1907  a  turn-over  of  957,000  pud  butter,  of  a  value  of  160,000,- 
000  rubles.  (1  pud  equal  to  34  Ibs.) 

All  these  consumers'  unions  or  distributing  artels  or  "co- 
operatives" were  united  into  a  central  body  which  is  known  under 
the  name  of  Centrosoyuz.  To  the  Centrosoyuz  belonged  in  1914 
13,500  affiliated  distributing  artels  with  a  membership  of  1,500,- 
000  and  a  turn-over  of  300,000,000  rubles. 

When  the  war  broke  out  the  consumer's  unions  of  Russia  de- 
veloped as  in  no  other  country.  There  are  principally  two  circum- 
stances back  of  the  mighty  growth  of  the  Centrosoyuz  that  attract 
our  attention.  First,  the  czar's  government  did  not  worry  itself 
very  much  about  supplying  food  stuffs  to  the  population,  so  that 
the  workers  and  peasants  had  to  help  themselves — and  since  that 
time  the  workers  in  the  industries  also  have  joined  this  movement, 
while  it  formerly  comprised  mostly  peasants;  second,  the  prices 
of  food  stuffs  began  to  rise  in  such  a  manner  that  the  working 
population  of  the  cities  in  mass  joined  these  societies,  in  order  to 
procure  more  cheaply  the  necessary  means  of  life.  So  the  num- 
ber of  single  consumers'  societies  rose  in  the  year  1917  to  20,000 ; 
to  25,000  in  1918;  to  50,000  in  the  year  1919.  At  the  same  time 
the  membership^  rose  to  7,000,000  in  1917,  to  10,000,000  in  1918, 
and  15,000,000  in  1919.  In  the  year  of  1919  the  turn-over  was  not 
less  than  15  billion  rubles  (15,000,000,000). 

Politically,  these  unions  were  of  a  more  or  less  neutral  char- 
acter. But  as  they  grew  ever  more  powerful,  their  influence  also, 
naturally,  became  noticeable  in  politics.  After  the  growth  of  the 
movement  there  was  a  division  into  two  parts.  One  agricultural 
society,  consisting  of  peasants,  and  one  distribution  society,  con- 
sisting of  the  working  population  of  the  cities.  After  the  out- 

75 


break  of  the  revolution  some  leaders  of  both  kinds  of  societies 
entered  the  provisional  government.  But  in  doing  so  they  had 
given  up  their  political  neutrality.  As  economic  life  influences 
political  life,  so  these  co-operatives  had,  through  their  economic 
power,  become  an  important  factor  politically,  with  which  the 
government  was  compelled  to  count. 

In  the  course  of  development  there  arose  under  the  Centro- 
soyuz  even  productive  societies,  which  produced  goods  which  the 
peasants  could  not  create.  The  co-operatives  distribute  not  only 
food  stuffs,  but  also  garments,  cloth,  silk  and  other  articles. 

After  the  outbreak  of  the  October  revolution,  the  co-opera- 
tives developed  with  considerably  greater  rapidity  than  be- 
fore, ,as  will  appear  from  the  figures  given  above.  One  of  the 
most  active  men  was  Tugon  Baranovski,  a  friend  of  Peter  Krop- 
otkin's.  But  these  newly  arisen  consumers'  unions  had  only  a 
short  life.  Through  the  decree  of  the  soviet  government  of  March 
28,  1918,  the  consumers'  unions  or  co-operatives  were  nationalized, 
and  all  of  the  consumers'  unions  founded  by  the  workers  them- 
selves were  deprived  of  their  independence  and  inserted  among 
the  state  organs. 

The  vicarious  chairman  of  the  executive  committee  of  the 
present  nationalized  "Centrosoyuz,"  P.  L.  Voikoff,  related  in  an 
interview  which  we  had  with  him  on  June  22,  1920,  that  the  bol- 
sheviks after  the  outbreak  of  the  October  revolution  desired 
use  the  existing  co-operatives  as  organs  of  the  new  state  for  th< 
distribution    of    food    stuffs.     But    difficulties    arose,  for  the  cc 
operatives,  represented  by  their  old   leaders,  made   active   resisl 
ance  to  the  nationalization.    But  the  government,  which  desi] 
to  lead  the  consumers'  unions  into  new  channels,  removed  th< 
persons  which  stood  in  its  way  and  installed  a  new  executiv< 
committee)  which  consisted  of  men  who  carried  out  the  intentic 
of  the  government.    This  new  executive  committee  consists  of 
members,  who  all  belong  to  the  Communist  Party  (bolsheviks) 

According  to  the  opinion  of  the  old,  dismissed  leaders  of  th( 
Centrosoyuz,  the  consumers'  unions  were  associations  of  free  citi- 
zens, but  the  tendency  of  nationalization  was  against  the  charactei 
of  the  organization.  The  government  desired  to  "democratize"  th( 
unions,  as  they  called  it.  For  this  purpose  the  whole  populatioi 
had  to  _  enter  into  these  unions.  The  government  issued  a  decree, 
according  to  which  every  citizen  had  to  be  a  member  of  the  cc 
sumers'  union.  By  the  decree  of  March  18,  the  old  committ( 
of  the  consumers'  union  were  forced  by  the  state  to  call  in  an  as- 
sembly ;  in  this  assembly  a  new  committee  was  elected.  In  the  elec- 
tions for  this  committee  the  whole  population  could  take 
whether  they  were  members  of  the  old  consumers'  unions  or  not 
each  one  had  the  right  to  vote.  This  is  what  they  called  "demon 
cratization."  This  committee,  which  is  to  be  found  in  all  locali- 
ties, in  every  commune,  elects  a  representative  to  a  district  com- 

76 


mittee,  and  this  district  committee  elects  the  members  of  the 
executive  committee  of  the  Centrosoyuz. 

This  is,  however,  the  case  only  theoretically,  for,  according 
to  the  statements  of  the  vicarious  chairman  already  referred  to, 
the  executive  committee  was,  in  practise,  not  elected  but  appointed 
by  the  government,  by  which  process  only  members  of  the  Com- 
munist Party  were  picked  out. 

One  representative  of  this  Centrosoyuz  is  Krassin,  and  he  is 
not  only  ,a  representative  of  the  Centrosoyuz,  but,  the  Centrosoyuz 
being  a  state  organ,  he  is  also  an  official  representative  of  the 
Soviet  government.  As  such  he  was  received  by  the  English  gov- 
ernment. Krassin  represents  the  commercial  interests  of  the 
Soviet  government,  and  for  lack  of  a  different  apparatus  the  gov- 
ernment is  using  this  Centrosoyuz.  Through  the  Centrosoyuz  the 
Soviet  government  will  carry  on  import  and  export  business  with 
foreign  countries. 

But  if  the  Centrosoyuz  is  an  official  organ  of  the  government 
as  regards  foreign  countries,  such  is  not  the  case  domestically. 
The  official  government  organ  is  the  Food  Stuffs  Commissariat. 
But  as  this  proved  itself  incapable  of  handling  the  provisioning 
of  the  population,  the  Soviet  government  makes  use  of  the  con- 
sumers' unions. 

The  function  of  such  a  consumers'  union  are  known  to  every 
organized  west-European  worker.  In  Russia  they  were  similar  to 
what  they  are  in  the  rest  of  Europe.  The  small  consumers'  unions 
gathered  money  for  the  purchase  of  goods.  When  they  did  not  col- 
lect enough  money,  they  received  the  necessary  means  as  a  loan 
from  a  bigger  union  affiliated  with  the  Centrosoyuz.  The  goods 
purchased  they  divided  among  their  members.  In  the  peasant  co- 
operatives production  is  mostly  individual,  as  we  have  already  in- 
dicated in  the  chapter  about  the  Land.  The  co-operative  societies 
of  the  peasants  embrace  only  consumption,  not  production.  The 
peasants  must  deliver  to  the  government  everything  that  they  do 
not  need  for  themselves.  The  government  organ  for  this  purpose 
is  the  Food  Stuffs  Commissariat  and  the  consumers'  unions.  Thus, 
while  the  government  has  two  ways  of  obtaining  goods,  the  peas- 
ants have  only  one,  namely  through  their  co-operative  societies. 

The  purpose  of  the  government  in  nationalizing  the  con- 
sumers' unions  or  co-operative  societies  was  twofold :  First,  it  ivas 
desired  to  disestablish  the  unions  as  being  <{ capitalistic  undertak- 
ings'^ which  had  their  own  private  banks.  This  was  done  by  con- 
fiscating ^  the  larger  productive  undertakings  of  the  societies; 
second,  it  ivas  desired  to  discontinue  private  trade.  The  supply- 
ing of  the  people  should  be  done  exclusively  through  the  organs 
of  the  state.  The  most  important  question  for  us  is :  Has  nation- 
alization proven  a  success,  have  the  co-operative  societies  had 
the  capacity  of  their  service  increased  through  nationalization, 
and  can  an  imitation  of  these  tactics  be  recommended? 

The  Sucherevka  market  in  Moscow,  the  fish  market  in  Char- 

77 


kov,  and  similar  markets  in  all  the  cities  of  Russia  give  the  first- 
answer  to  this  question,  namely,  that  the  government  has  not  suc- 
ceeded in  regulating  the  provisioning  of  the  population  through 
its  measures.  But  even  when  there  is  only  a  small  market  in  a 
city,  such  as  in  Petrograd,  it  only  means  that  the  population  is 
procuring  the  necessary  provisions  in  some  other  more  under- 
ground manner.  Today  the  co-operative  societies  no  longer  have 
the  service  capacity  which  they  had  'before  nationalization.  Why? 
The  societies  no  longer  are  unions  of  peasants'  artels,  in  which 
the  peasants  leave  their  products  to  be  sold,  but  the  government 
has  rather  taken  over  the  task  of  handling  the  agricultural  prod- 
ucts. How  this  takes  place  we  have  already  seen.  The  peasants 
are  compelled  to  part  with  their  grain  for  100  rubles  per  pud. 
Whether  the  organs  through  which  the  government  handles  this 
work  are  called  departments  of  the  Food  Stuffs  Commissariat  or 
departments  of  the  Centrosoyuz,  it  all  comes  to  the  same  thing,  for 
if  the  peasants  refuse  to  deliver  at  those  prices,  they  are  forced 
to  it  through  the  military.  In  each  case  the  soldiers  requisition 
the  grain.  The  societies  also  receive  their  products  through  the 
government  and  cannot  distribute  any  more  than  they  receive 
from  the  government.  But  as  this,  for  reasons  mentioned,  is  not 
sufficient,  the  societies  are  far  less  serviceable  than  before  the  na- 
tionalization. The  societies  are  to-day  no  longer  free  institutions, 
but,  according  to  the  words  of  the  vicarious  chairman,  the  popula- 
tion are  forced  to  become  members.  And  it  is  clear  that  a  com- 
pulsory organization  cannot  work  as  well  as  a  free  one.  The  so- 
cieties are  to-day  less  capable  of  supplying  the  population  witl 
the  necessary  provisions,  and  for  that  reason  everybody  tries  t< 
supply  through  private  channels  what  is  missing. 

Branches  of  the  co-operative  societies  were  established  by  the 
government  in  conjunction  with  the  trade  unions  in  the  factories, 
and  these  committees  conduct  the  distribution  of  the  products.   Ii 
that  manner  the  workers  receive  through  this  committee  thei] 
pound  of  bread  directly  in  the  factory.     But  oftener  the  factoi 
committee,  elected  in  the  factory,  performs  this  function.    But 
must  here  note  that  in  all  factories  which  I  have  visited— an< 
they  amounted  in  Russia  and  Ukraine  to  20 — the  workers  com- 
plained of  not  receiving  a  sufficient  ration  of  food  stuffs.     In 
chocolate  factory  the  girls  cried  and  complained  that  they  hac 
not  received  any  bread  for  three  days.     In  a  textile  factory  they 
were  just  receiving  bread  when  we  visited  them.   They  started 
use  harsh  language  and  complained  that  they  were  not  receiving 
full  weight.    The  manager,  who  showed  us  the  factory,  wanted 
prove  to  them  that  they  were  mistaken,  and  he  went  to  the  scal< 
and  weighed  portions  of  the  bread,  and,  in  fact,  there  was 
gram  missing  to  the  pound.    The  soldiers,  however,  receive  much 
richer  rations.     On  a  Volga  steamer  the  sailors,  beaming  with 
joy,  showed  us  the  great  quantity  of  bread  and  sugar  that  the] 
received. 

As  the  reason  for  the  low   productivity  of   the   workers   we 

78 


may  put  down  the  lack  of  food  stuffs.  One  would  think  that  the 
food  shortage  was  general,  as  the  workers  could  not  themselves 
procure  food  stuffs  in  a  different  manner,  and  it  would  lead  one  to 
think  that  there  was  a  shortage  in  the  market  place,  or  every- 
where. But  such  is  not  the  case.  While  the  workers  were  unable  to 
obtain  sufficient  through  the  organs  of  the  government,  for  the 
stated  reason  that  there  was  not  enough,  it  is  possible  to  buy  every- 
thing in  the  market.  Besides,  the  workers  organize  small  circles  in 
the  factory,  pool  their  money  and  send  one  of  several  of  their  fel- 
low workers  out  in  the  country  to  buy  provisions  from  the  peas- 
ants. These  provisions  are  thereafter  divided  between  the  partici- 
pants. Thus,  the  workers  have  again  created  new,  voluntary,  small 
co-operatives,  or  consumers'  unions,  although  of  only  a  temporary 
character,  because  the  nationalized  consumers'  societies  no  longer 
were  able  to  cover  their  needs. 

Just  as  little  as  the  state  was  able  to  acquire  the  whole  of 
production,  just  so  little  was  it  possible  to  force  the  whole  of  con- 
sumption into  the  state  organization.  Economic  life  cannot  be 
forced  into  the  compulsory  forms  of  the  state;  if  it  is  tried,  the 
impossibility  of  it  comes  to  light.  Centralism  is  always  greatest 
in  governments  during  times  of  war,  and  this  applies  also  to 
Russia.  While  during  the  war  it  was  not  possible  to  force  the 
whole  economic  life  into*  the  centralist  mold,  after  the  war  it  was 
still  less  possible  to  handle  everything  by  means  of  the  centralist 
apparatus  of  the  state,  it  being  then  necessary  to  loosen  up  the 
tight  reins  a  little,  if  a  catastrophe  shall  not  be  conjured  up. 
Society  and  social-economic  life  are  not  a  machine,  nor  an 
apparatus.  But  the  bolsheviks  seem  to  conceive  of  them  as  an 
apparatus — to  their  daily  vocabulary  belongs  the  word  "ap- 
paratus," for  the  single  parts  of  an  apparatus  or  a  machine  are 
dead  things.  But  the  separate  parts,  of  which  human  society  is 
composed,  are  beings  with  will  power.  The  mistake  inherent  in 
all  bolshevik  theories  and  which  all  bolsheviks  are  always  making, 
is  that  they  do  not  sufficiently  count  with  this.  And  that  is  also 
the  reason  why  all  their  organizing  and  "apparatus  creating"  so 
far  has  been  so  imperfect,  as  they  themselves  admit,  while  they, 
naturally,  do  not  want  to  use  any  other  name  for  the  organizations 
which  are  born  out  of  their  autocratic  world  conception.  In  the 
future  it  will  be  still  more  impossible  than  in  the  three  past  years 
of  bolshevik  rule  to  lay  hold  of  everything  by  means  of  various 
kinds  of  apparatus  in  the  bolshevik  sense,  by  means  of  state  or- 
gans. Leaving  out  the  fact  that  the  bolsheviks  degrade  the  indi- 
vidual to  a  will-less  tool  in  the  hands  of  an  apparatus,  they  can 
never  reach  what  they  are  striving  for  by  such  means. 

We  have  already  seen  that  outside  of  the  economic  organiza- 
tions of  production  and  consumption  maintained  by  the  state,  the 
workers  help  themselves,  and  that  a  large  part  of  the  economic 
activities  of  the  country  takes  place  outside  the  limitations  fixed 
by  the  state. 

79 


A  special  chapter  in  Russia  is  shuffling.  In  order  to  get  an 
idea  of  it,  it  is  sufficient  to  refer  to  the  statements  of  the  bolshe- 
viks themselves.  Thus,  as  an  example,  the  Moscow  paper  "Com- 
munist Labor"  writes  in  the  second  half  of  June,  1920,  in  regard 
to  goods  which  had  been  located  in  several  sections  of  Moscow, 
and  which  could  be  labeled  as  shuffle-goods,  that  is,  as  goods 
which  had  nowhere  been  entered,  and  which  consequently  had 
been  shuffled  to  one  side  by  "responsible  soviet  employees."  In 
the  Rogoschevsky-Simenovski-Rayon  were  found  1,546  lots  of 
shuffle-goods.  Among  these  were  59,149  pud  (1  pud  equal  to  34 
Ibs.)  nickle,  30,135  pud  aluminium;  25,071  pud  tin;  237,076  pud 
zink;  18,332  pud  lead  plate;  921,857  pud  brass;  535,979  pud  steel; 
undetermined  quantities  of  wire;  18,000  two-handle  saws;  20,610 
axes;  32,330  pairs  of  boots;  5  million  archins  of  woolen-goods; 
110,566  archins  (21-3  feet)  of  linen;  20,426  pud  coffee  and  tea, 
and  many  other  things  that  are  mentioned  in  the  paper  but  which 
it  is  useless  to  enumerate  here,  as  this  already  is  sufficient  to  show 
that  through  the  centralist  system  the  biggest  kind  of  conscious 
shufflings  are  possible.  It  remains  to  mention  that  in  another 
rayon,  among  other  goods,  were  found  1/2  million  pairs  of  stock- 
ings and  47  carloads  of  agricultural  machinery.  This  would,  of 
course,  be  impossible  if  a  decentralistic,  that  is,  a  federalistic 
system  were  applied,  and  the  workers  of  every  rayon  or  the 
workers  handling  it,  had  control  over  the  goods.  As  it  is  now, 
under  the  centralistic  system,  only  one  central  needs  to  know 
where  the  goods  belong,  and  all  other  sub-departments  have  to 
follow  the  order  of  the  central.  Through  this  system  nothing  is 
easier  than  that  shuffling  will  sneak  in,  for  if  there  is  only  one 
shuffler  at  the  central,  goods  to  the  value  of  millions  can  be  shuf- 
fled, because  the  workers  who  are  handling  it  are  only  the  horses 
that  pull  the  chariot  of  the  Central. 

Another  example  given  by  Zinoviev  himself  shows  how  won- 
derfully the  "apparatus"  of  the  centralistic  organization  of  na- 
tional economy  functions.  At  ,a  conference  of  the  Communist 
Party  of  Russia,  which  was  held  in  Moscow  in  October,  1920, 
Zinoviev  spoke  of  the  shortcomings  and  weaknesses  of  the  party 
and  in  the  organizations  created  by  it.  He  related  that,  on  the 
Murman  coast  there  is,  as  is  well  known,  a  rich  run  of  fish,  but 
particularly  so  in  recent  weeks,  when  the  season  had  been  at  its 
height.  The  comrades  there  say  that  the  fish  is  so  plentiful  that 
it  is  sufficient  only  to  pull  about  three  times  in  the  water  with  a 
stick  with  a  hook  attached,  in  order  to  catch  fish.  But  in  spite  of 
that  the  Murman  railroad  workers  and  laborers  do  not  get  a 
single  pound  of  fresh  fish  and  are  compelled  to  live  from  dried 
fish,  at  best.  How  does  that  come  about?  It  arises  from  the  fact 
that  we  have  a  fish  central  ("Glavryba'),  which  says:  "First  you 
must  catch  the  fish,  thereafter  register  it  on  the  books  and  throw 
salt  on  its  tail,"  and  only  then  can  the  workers  receive  it  But 
the  workers  try  to  get  in  touch  with  the  fish  central,  the  latter 
tar  out  of  range."  Another  example  quoted  by  Zinoviev:  "I 

80 


want  to  tell  you  about  another  case.  In  Ussolje  immense  supplies 
of  salt  were  stored  up.  The  peasants  asked  for  permission  to  fetch 
the  salt  quantities  due  them  on  their  own  wagons,  under  the  con- 
trol of  food  stuffs  authorities.  The  chauncery  nag  began  its  trot, 
but  in  the  meantime  the  river  rose  above  its  banks  and  licked  up 
all  the  salt.  What  do  you  expect  the  peasant  to  say  to  this?  Fifty 
miles  from  the  Baku  the  workers  and  the  peasants  are  without 
petroleum.  And  there  in  Baku  is  the  main  spring  of  petroleum! 
That  is  due  to  the  shortcomings  of  our  organization." 

So  far  Zinoviev.  I  have  myself  heard  of  numerous  such  cases 
in  Russia  from  different  people,  but  if  I  refer  to  Peter  Kropotkin, 
Emma  Goldman  or  Spiridonova,  or  other  pronounced  anti-central- 
ists who  have  gathered  together  much  material,  it  would  probably 
appear  to  some  that  these  tales  are  colored.  But  it  cannot  very 
well  be  received  in  that  manner  when  it  comes  from  the  mouth 
of  the  arch  centralists.  What  happened  to  the  peasants  of 
Ussolje,  also  happened  to  innumerable  other  peasants  about  wood, 
and  also  to  the  Petrograd  workers,  and  so  it  will  always  go 
and  must  go  as  long  as  the  system  of  centralism  rules  in  all 
economic  organizations.  It  is  not  only  a  few  shortcomings,  so, 
Zinoviev  ivouM  have\  you  believe,  bu\t  it  is  the  principle  of  pol- 
itical centralism  on  which  the  blame  falls.  I  can  further  illustrate 
this  through  a  personal  experience:  A  female  friend  of  mine  in 
Moscow  asked  me  to  procure  some  antiquarian  books  for  her. 
After  a  long  search  I  happened  to  see  the  books  in  a  soviet  book 
store,  and  I  stepped  in  and  wanted  to  buy  them.  But  there  my 
troubles  began.  Yes,  I  could  buy  the  books  but  had  first  to  obtain 
permission  from  the  book  central,  "Centropitschatsch."  I  took 
the  address  and  went  forth.  But  the  place  was  at  the  other  end 
of  Moscow.  Upon  arriving  there  (one  has  to  walk,  for  the  popula- 
tion cannot  ride  in  autos  like  foreign  delegates)  I  found  it  closed. 
The  next  day  I  went  again,  but  I  was  told  that  It  was  no  longer 
there  but  in  a  different  location.  Finally  finding  the  Book  Central, 
I  first  came  to  a  lady  who  sat  at  a  desk.  She  ordered  me  to  fill 
out  a  slip  and  sent  me  to  the  next  office.  There  another  blank 
had  to  be  filled  out  with  the  names  of  the  books  that  I  wanted, 
and  with  this  blank  I  was  further  sent  into  a  different  room. 
There  it  was  registered,  and  I  was  sent  back  to  the  second  room 
with  the  order  blank.  Now  the  order  blank  was  signed,  and  now 
I  could  go  to  the  book  store  and  get  the  three  antiquarian  books. 
But  now  I  saw  a  German  book  in  the  store,  which  I  would  have 
liked  to  buy  for  myself,  I  was  told  that  it  was  necessary  for  me 
to  again  get  an  order  blank  from  the  central.  By  this  time  I  had 
enough  of  this  and  let  the  book  lie  where  it  was.  In  order  to  buy 
a  couple  of  antiquarian  books,  one  needs,  consequently,  two  days. 
No  wonder  if  life  gets  clogged  and  dissatisfaction  over  it  grows. 
But  these  are  not  merely  some  shortcomings  of  the  organization, 
but  the  whole  system  is  wrong. 

That  bureaucracy,  the  intimate  friend  of  centralism,  pros- 
pers under  such  conditions  is  clear  without  further  argument.  And 

81 


there  are  twice  as  many  bureaucrats  in  Moscow  as  there  are  work- 
ers. According  to  a  Rosta  poster — one  often  finds  these  stuck  up 
on  the  walls  in  Russia — the  following  are  the  population  figures 
given  for  1919-1920 : 

400,000  children  under  16  years, 
250,000  housewives, 
105,000  workers  organized  in  unions, 
233,000  soviet  employees  and  officials, 
312,000  persons  of  the  bourgeois  element. 


Total  1,300,000  inhabitants  in  Moscow. 

Although  it  is  compulsory  for  all  workers  in  Russia  to  belong 
to  the  union,  there  are  no  more  workers  in  Moscow  than  those 
here  mentioned.  There  are,  consequently,  only  105,000  workers, 
but  233,000  soviet  employees.  But  the  remaining  312,000  parasitic 
elements  also  "work"  together  with  the  soviet  officials,  that  is, 
they  are  engaged  in  some  sort  of  smuggle  trade.  Naturally,  not 
very  much  of  productive  work  can  be  accomplished  in  this  man- 
ner, and  as  a  matter  of  course  it  reacts  on  the  food  stuffs  and  pro- 
vision situation  of  the  country. 

The  Life  of  the  Workers  in  the  Cities 

The  workers  cannot  live  from  the  food  stuffs  that  they  re- 
ceive. They  are,  therefore,  compelled  to  resort  to  self-help  and 
to  smuggle.  This  is  not  said  in  order  to  paint  something  in  black 
colors,  but  only  in  order  to  illustrate  the  situation  which  arose 
from  a  complex  of  different  circumstances.  Street  railways  handle 
very  little  traffic  in  Petrograd,  in  Moscow  they  are  still  scarcer, 
and  at  the  end  of  October  the  whole  street  car  service  was  sus- 
pended. The  workers  must,  consequently,  often  walk  over  an 
hour  to  their  work  or  their  soviet  office  (if  it  is  a  soviet  em- 
ployee) .  For  lunch  they  remain  in  the  factory  or  the  bureau.  They 
receive  their  noon-day  meal  at  the  place  of  work,  in  the  soviet 
offices  or  in  most  of  the  factories.  It  consists  almost  exclusively 
of  soup  and  "kascha"  (mush) .  In  Moscow  this  meal  is  very  poor 
everywhere,  but  in  some  places  in  Charkov  comparatively  good. 
For  a  worker  one  must  consider  the  meal  even  quantitatively 
as  insufficient.  Besides,  they  receive  other  food,  the  so-called 
"payok."  This  also  is  unsatisfactory.  But  in  the  fall,  when  there 
are  apples  or  wood  at  the  bureau,  then  everybody  must  bring 
them  home  on  his  or  her  back  which  may  require  an  hour. 
When  he  comes  home  he  is,  of  course,  not  able  to  do  anything. 
And  still  he  lacks  every  convenience  in  the  house.  Having  to  do 
everything  himself,  his  whole  activity  is  expended  on  a  lot  of 
petty  things,  so  that  he  can  do  very  little  productive  work. 

The  product  turned  out  by  the  ivorkers  in  the  factories  is 
minimal,  as  one  can  understand  from  the  standard  of  life.  But 
this  is  frequently  regarded  by  the  government  as  sabotage,  and 

82 


the  communist  cell  in  the  factory,  which  has  to  watch  over  it, 
often  denounces  the  worker  for  sabotage.  For  this  they  are  then 
punished. 

The  rations  (payok)  to  which  the  workers  are  entitled  in  a 
locomotive  repair  shop  which  I  inspected,  are,  per  month:  25  Ib. 
flour  (1  Russian  Ib.  equal  to  400  gram  or  .88  Ib.  American 
weight)  ;  1  Ib.  oil;  8  Ibs.  fish;  5  Ibs.  groats;  li/2  tobacco;  2  Ibs. 
sugar;  14  Ib.  coffee;  1%  Ib.  salt.  But  the  workers  do  not  receive 
these  rations  regularly.  When  I  visited  the  factory,  the  shop  com- 
mittee was  just  in  session,  and  they  complained  that  during  the 
previous  month  the  workers  had  not  received  any  oil  and  not 
enough  flour. 

If  the  workers  do  not  get  enough  they  try  to  procure  more 
through  private  channels.  The  bakers  take  dough  with  them 
home  in  their  long  pockets.  Their  women  make  small  cakes 
out  of  it  and  sell  them  in  the  market.  The  bread  carriers  steal 
the  ready  baked  bread ;  I  spoke  with  one  of  the  carriers,  who  told 
me  quite  openly  that  if  he  did  not  do  this  he  could  not  exist.  The 
same  thing  other  workers  do,  who  are  employed  in  other  branches 
of  industry.  Everybody  tries  to  pull  through  in  ways  that  are 
permitted  or  not  permitted. 

Perhaps  many  a  person  will  ask  the  question  why  the  work- 
ers do  not  buy  what  they  need.  This  is  not  exactly  possible,  be- 
cause they  simply  cannot  pay  the  prices  that  are  asked  in  free 
trade.  The  workers  receive  from  3,000  to  10,000  rubles  per  month. 
The  meal  in  the  factory  is  not  expensive;  its  costs  only  about 
20  rubles.  Similarly  the  prices  of  the  things  which  they  receive 
in  their  rations  are  very  cheap.  Also  the  prices  for  everything 
received  from  the  government  are  very  low,  so  that,  if  the  work- 
ers received  sufficient  from  that  source,  they  would  get  along  very 
well  with  their  money,  yes,  they  even  could  save  a  good  deal  of 
money.  But  the  reason  they  receive  such  a  high  wage  is  because 
the  rations  are  not  sufficient.  When  they  are  compelled  to  pay 
500-600  rubles  for  a  pound  of  bread  in  the  market  and  from 
5,000-6,000  rubles  for  a  pound  of  butter,  then  they  would  have  to 
earn  100,000  rubles  per  month  if  they  want  to*  come  out  right. 

Of  the  mentioned  312,000  individuals  of  the  bourgeois  ele- 
ments, which  according  to  the  Rosta  statistics  are  to  be  found 
in  Moscow,  there  are  also  many  wretched  persons,  which  deserve 
any  name  but  bourgeois.  In  the  summer,  visitors  to  the  second 
congress  of  the  III.  International  could  see  men  and  women  lying 
in  the  streets  at  night,  sleeping.  If  you  asked  these  people  why 
they  slept  in  the  street,  they  answered  that  they  wanted  to  be  the 
first  in  the  morning  when  the  bureau  was  opened  to  get  their  al- 
lowance of  railway  travel.  These  people  then  went  to>  the  rail- 
way and  traveled  to  the  surrounding  villages,  in  order  to  buy  milk 
and,  if  possible,  other  things  which  they  later  sold  in  the  Moscow 
market.  At  the  railway  stations  one  can  later  see  hundreds  of 
ragged  persons,  who  have  traveled  a  long  way  for  from  two  to 
five  liters  of  milk  (1  liter  equal  to  1.76  pint),  in  order  to  sell  it 

83 


later  for  a  small  gain,  and,  too,  always  in  danger  of  being  ar- 
rested. Milk  distribution  is  so  poorly  organized  that  thousands 
fetch  a  liter  a  piece  from  the  village,  instead  of  one  bringing  a 
thousand  liters  of  milk,  as  is  done  in  Berlin.  In  spite  of  the  over- 
whelming centralism  they  have  not  been  able  to  arrange  this. 
Disregarding  this  highly  irrational  supply  system  there  is  not  a 
spark  of  the  socialist  spirit  to  be  seen  in  it.  The  bolsheviks  have 
not  yet  even  made  arrangements  for  a  communal  milk  supply, 
such  as  is  introduced  in  Berlin  for  children  and  for  the  sick'  and 
then  they  want  to  talk  about  communism  and  call  themselves  con>- 
munists ! 

Nor  can  we  designate  as  communistic  the  wage  policy  in 
force.  There  are  two  standards  by  which  to  size  up  this  ques- 
tion: (1)  The  land,  the  nation,  the  state,  perhaps  also  the  class; 
(2)  the  workers  and  the  individual.  The  first  is  the  starting  point  to 
the  state  socialists,  the  social-democrats,  the  bolsheviks,  the  "com- 
munists" ;  the  second  is  the  starting  point  of  the  anti-state  social- 
ists. If  we  think  of  the  welfare  of  the  country,  the  state — even 
if  it  is  a  proletarian  state — or  of  the  class,  then  we  will  do  every- 
thing to  defend  these.  That  is  what  the  bolsheviks  do.  When  the 
revolution  broke  out,  it  was  in  this  sense  that  they  had  to  defend 
the  revolution.  They  had  to  keep  the  industry  of  the  country 
going  at  any  price,  even  if  they  had  to  give  up  the  principal  de- 
mands of  socialism,  namely  the  equal  wage.  At  present  there 
are  in  Russia  35  wage  steps  or  wage  classes,  the  academically 
educated  people,  the  engineers,  the  technicians,  the  organizers, 
etc.,  are  in  the  highest  classification  of  wages,  the  trained  work- 
ers in  the  middle  classes  and  the  unskilled  workers  in  the  lowest 
classes.  Furthermore,  consideration  is  given  to  the  question 
whether  the  workers  labor  in  establishments  which  are  important 
for  the  war  and  against  the  counter-revolution.  They  have  even 
proposed  to  the  railwayman,  in  the  summer  of  1920,  the  tariff 
which  was  laid  before  them  in  1912  during  czarism,  but  which  was 
then  declined.  We  are,  consequently,  forced  to  say  that  Russia  has 
gone  to  the  dogs  on  the  wage  question,  no  matter  what  beautiful 
phrases  or  important  reasons  Lenin  may  put  forward  to  defend  it. 

The  bolsheviks  were  driven  to  this  wage  policy,  which  we 
have  just  designated  as  anti-socialist,  through  an  important  turn 
of  the  conditions.  The  workers  ivere  not  in  a  position  to  take 
over  the  industries.  They  were  not  prepared  for  it  and  they 
had  not  organized  themselves  for  the  purpose  of  taking  over  pro- 
duction. In  Russia  this  was  certainly  not  possible.  The  revolu- 
tion did  not  come  when  the  workers  or  a  group  of  revolutionaries 
were  ready  with  their  revolutionary  preparations,  or  when  the 
workers  were  technically  so  well  prepared  that  they  could  take 
over  production  without  friction  from  the  capitalistic  leaders 
(whether  they  be  technicians  or  organizers),  but  the  revolution 
came  in  Russia  before  the  workers  were  in  a  position  to  prepare 
for  it.  When  too,  a  political  party  takes  the  power,  then,  natur- 
ally, nothing  socialistic  can  come  from  it.  One  need  not,  conse- 

84 


quently,  be  astonished  over  the  fact  that  the  bolsheviks  did  not 
carry  through  a  socialist  wage  policy,  but,  on  the  contrary,  there 
would  have  been  reason  for  astonishment  if  they  had  worked  out 
such  a  wage  policy. 

The  bolsheviks  had  thus  been  compelled  to  retain  the  bour- 
geoisie which  had  been  the  leader  of  industry  before  the  revolu- 
tion, in  their  employ,  either  by  means  of  physical  force  or  through 
extra-ordinary  high  pay.  The  last  method  proved  to  be  the  best 
one,  and  the  capitalist  wage  policy  was  continued,  but  at  the  same 
time  they  explained,  and  they  do  so  yet,  that  the  aim  was  to 
further  develop  the  workers,  in  order  to  make  the  bourgeoisie 
more  superfluous  and  replace  them  by  workers. 

But  if  they  now  had  such  bad  luck  in  Russia,  that  the  revolu- 
tion found  the  workers  unprepared  and  in  no  position  to  take  pro- 
duction out  of  the  hands  of  the  capitalists,  then  we  must  at  least 
draw  a  lesson  therefrom.  For  the  bad  thing  about  it  is  that  the 
workers  who,  naturally,  are  no  political  economists  and  do  not 
understand  the  connection  of  things,  put  the  blame  on  the  revolu- 
tionary party  or  organization  which  happens  to  be  in  power. 
This  time  it  happens  to  be  the  bolsheviks,  but  if  it  were  the  syn- 
dicalists or  the  anarchists  or  any  other  revolutionary  government, 
then  it  would  be  the  same  lyre  they  would  be  compelled  to  play 
on,  and  the  workers  would  consider  them  as  their  rulers,  just  as 
they  now  consider  the  bolsheviks. 

This  lesson  the  syndicalists  drew  already  long  ago,  insofar 
as  they  admonish  the  workers  to  prepare  and  develop  themselves 
personally,  as  well  as  their  organizations,  in  such  a  manner  that 
when  a  revolution  breaks  out,  from  various  economic,  psycholog- 
ical and  political  reasons,  it  finds  the  workers  prepared.  Pe- 
culiarly enough,  the  syndicalists  who  teach  this  are  decried  and 
"accused"  by  the  same  bolsheviks  and  party  communists  as  re- 
formists. Thus,  things  are  being  put  on  their  head.  Instead  of 
the  bolsheviks  saying  to  the  syndicalists:  "Yes,  you  are  right; 
if  the  revolution  and  socialism  shall  not  become  entirely  discred- 
ited before  the  workers,  then  we  must  strike  out  for  this  road," 
they  say  to  the  syndicalists  that,  "if  revolution  breaks  out  we  will 
either  put  you  in  jail  o<r  stand  you  up  against  a  wall."  That  is 
what  they  have  done  in  Russia  at  all  events,  where  many  anarcho- 
syndicalists  have  been  put  in  jail. 

They  cannot  entirely  cut  loose  from  this  doctrine,  which 
on  one  side  is  promulgated  by  the  syndicalists  and  on  the  other 
side  also  by  Eugen  Duhring  in  his  book  "Social  Salvation"  many 
years  ago,  and  for  that  reason  the  doctrine  is  smuggled  into  the 
theses  of  the  III.  International,  where  a  great  role  is  assigned  to 
the  trade  unions  in  the  conquest  of  the  political  power  and  in  the 
economic  up^building  of  communism.  But  the  principal  role  shall, 
of  course,  be  played  by  a  political,  communist  party. 

In  spite  of  all  this  obscuration  and  veil-pulling  it  is  not  pos- 
sible to  hide  the  fact  that  the  social  revolution  shall  be  so  much 

85 


the  more  successful,  that  is,  social  equality  shall  be  the  sooner 
realized,  the  better  the  workers  are  prepared  for  it.  Whoever 
wants  to  be  an  adherent  of  the  social  revolution  and  does  not  set 
his  eyes  chiefly  on  this,  but  on  the  conquest  of  political  power, 
he  shows  that  in  his  innermost  self  he  is  more  of  a  rioter,  an 
adherent  of  violent  phrases  rather  than  a  socialist.  But  such  are 
the  bolsheviks  in  Russia  and  the  political  communist  parties  in  all 
other  countries.  The  principal  task  for  a  real  socialist  or  com- 
munist, if  you  so  want  to  call  them,  lies  just  in  preparing  him- 
self, the  workers  and  the  peasants  for  social  equality,  on  the  eco- 
nomic, the  intellectual  and  the  moral  field;  but  he  must  be  a  syn- 
dicalist to  do  this. 

Still  another  circumstance  must  be  added,  which  contrib- 
uted to  the  development  of  the  35  wage  grades  or  to  the  fact  that 
the  bourgeoisie  is  better  paid  than  the  workers.  This  was  the 
use  of  the  motto:  "Who  does  not  work,  neither  shall  he  eat"  as 
a  tactical  principle.  As  a  theory  this  sentence  is  a  commonplace 
of  socialist,  or,  if  we  want  to  be  ironical,  of  biblical  propaganda. 
It  is  correct  and  just:  Who  does  not  wo<rk,  neither  shall  he  eat. 
But  this  must  not  be  interpreted  so  ,as  to  mean,  that  he  who  has 
not  worked  before  this  time  shall  from  now  on  get  nothing  to  eat. 
The  social  revolution  is  an  act  of  social  justice,  through  which 
social  injustices  are  done  away  with,  and  not  vice  versa.  The 
social  revolution  must  give  everybody  something  to  eat,  no  matter 
what  he  has  done  before,  even  if  he  has  done  nothing  at  all.  This 
method  is,  however,  to  be  recommended,  not  only  from  the  stand- 
point of  justice,  but  also  from  the  standpoint  of  revolutionary 
tactics.  That  the  bourgeoisie  of  Russia  was  given  nothing  or  less 
to  eat  than  others  has  revenged  itself.  When  they  later  were 
needed  for  the  organization  of  technical  and  industrial  life 
they  had  become  still  more  embittered  enemies  of  the  working 
class  than  before,  through  these  very  tactics. 

From  this,  also,  we  have  a  lesson  to1  draw:  Not  to  support 
the  negative  tendencies,  not  to  give  free  vent  to  instincts  of  re- 
venge in  ourselves  or  in  others,  but  to  combat  them  and,  on  the 
contrary,  do  everything  to  make  the  birth  of  the  social  revolution 
an  act  of  equalization  and  social  justice.  Or,  putting  it  in  more 
common  words :  To  give  bread  to  everybody  must  be  the  first  duty 
of  the  social  revolution. 

Workers'  Insurance 

When  formerly,  in  pre-revolutionary  days,  socialists,  syn- 
dicalists, or  anarchists  imagined  their  ideal  society  realized  or 
painted  it  before  themselves,  they  never  thought  of  such  a  thing 
as  workers'  insurance  or  labor  laws.  For  the  German  anarcho- 
socialists  or  syndicalists  such  things  always  had  the  flavor  oJ 
Bismarckian  politics.  Social  law-making  against  unemploymenl 
sickness,  accident,  etc.,  in  behalf  of  the  workers  was  conside] 
necessary  only  in  the  capitalist  state  while  already  the  funt 

86 


mental  principle  of  socialism  is  mutual  help,  so  that  social  law- 
making  in  the  old  capitalist  sense  of  the  word  could  not  be 
thought  of. 

That  workers'  insurance  is  being  introduced  in  Russia  only 
proves  again  that  there  we  have  not  to  do  with  a  social  revo- 
lution but  with  a  political  revolution,  which  has  deeply  impressed 
itself  upon  the  social  life  of  Russia.  Private  property  has  for  the 
largest  part  been  abolished  and  the  revolution  might  develop  into 
a  social  revolution  in  a  more  far-reaching  sense  if  other  countries 
also  are  entangled  in  the  revolution. 

That  influential,  revolutionary,  bolshevik  circles  in  Russia 
first  of  all  thought  of  introducing  the  progressive  measures 
which  had  been  realized  in  the  rest  of  Europe  for  some  time 
past,  should  not  be  counted  to  their  discredit.  Thus,  the  bol- 
sheviks carried  out  the  social  law-making  which  Kerensky  had 
commenced  on  a  small  scale,  but  on  a  much  larger  scale.  True, 
one  cannot  defend  onself  for  the  thought,  that  Kerensky  would 
have  done  the  same  thing  if  he  had  remained  in  power  longer. 
This  policy  of  social  law-making  gives  us  the  impression  of  a 
certain  reformist  tendency.  Up  to  then  all  social  law-making  had 
had  the  significance  of  an  addition  or  improvement  to  the  struc- 
ture of  capitalist  society.  But  one  cannot  pass  judgment  on  the 
basis  of  this  single  point;  we  must  rather  take  into  considera- 
tion the  whole  achievement  of  the  bolsheviks  and  the  whole  Rus- 
sian revolution.  Such  a  general  consideration  shows  us  that  the 
Russian  revolution  was  one  half  political  and  one  half  social  and 
in  i.ts  later  development  even  partly  inclined  to  reaction.  This 
all  constitutes  the  curves  of  development  we  cannot  yet  consider 
as  ended. 

In  the  realm  of  the  czar,  workers'  insurance  was  only  poorly 
developed.  Up  to  the  year  1917,  including  the  brief  Kerensky 
period,  there  were  in  all  Russia  1,457,503  workers  insured.  In 
the  year  1919  the  number  grew  to  3,009,510,  and  in  the  year  1920, 
according  to  the  statement  of  the  Commissar  of  Labor,  there  were 
6,000,000  persons,  who  were  all  subject  to  insurance.  But  in  a 
population  of  120,000,000  this  is  still  very  small.  Besides  one 
must  consider  the  whole  insurance,  in  the  present  situation,  to  be 
more  on  paper  than  carried  out  into  reality. 

The  institution  which  has  worked  out  the  insurance  system 
is  the  Commissariat  'of  Labor.  At  the  head  of  it  stands  the  Peo- 
ple's Commissar  of  Labor,  Schmidt.  But  this  commissariat  has 
to  care  for  not  only  the  workers  without  an  income,  but  also  for 
the  active  ones,  that  is,  it  has  to>  give  out  the  work  to  the  workers. 
The  commissariat  has  five  sub-departments.  The  first  branch 
handles  the  distribution  of  the  work  and  the  workers ;  the  second, 
protection  of  the  workers ;  the  third,  the  tariff  service ;  the  fourth, 
labor  statistics;  the  fifth,  a  labor  museum.  The  Commissariat  of 
Labor  has  sections  in  every  city.  If  workers  are  needed  in  a  place, 
they  are  sent  from  a  central  in  Moscow  or  from  a  provincial  divi- 
sion. This  institution  also  manages  the  negotiations  and  arrange- 

87 


merits  with  foreigners  who  wish  to  immigrate  into  Russia.  The 
workers  must  labor  according  to  the  conditions  fixed  by  the  com- 
missariat. As  the  commissar  of  labor  is  put  in  office  by  the  trade 
unions,  the  conditions  are  in  conformity  with  the  wishes  of  the 
Executive  Committee  of  the  unions,  and  the  tariff,  statistics,  etc., 
are  worked  out  by  the  Commissariat  in  conjunction  with  the  un- 
ions. When  a  job  of  some  kind  is  to  be  started,  such  as  the  erec- 
tion of  a  building,  the  Commissariat  for  Building  Construction 
addresses  itself  to  the  Supreme  Council  of  National  Economy  for 
material,  and  to  the  Labor  Commissariat  for  workers.  Just  as  the 
Supreme  Council  of  National  Economy  has  to  supply  the  material, 
so  the  Commissariat  of  Labor  has  to  supply  the  labor  power. 

These  measures  of  labor  protection  include  motherhood 
insurance,  child  insurance  and  the  bringing  up  of  children,  invalid 
and  sickness  insurance.  According  to  the  statements  of  Labor 
Commissar  Schmidt  the  basic  support  for  all  needy  is  1,200  rubles 
per  month.  This  is  the  minimum  wage  for  workers,  for  unem- 
ployed, for  women  whose  husbands  are  in  the  red  army,  etc.  Of 
the  workers  actually  employed — and  that  is  practically  all  the 
workers  included  in  the  unions — about  one-sixth  receives  this  min- 
imum wage;  five-sixths  receive  additional  payments  of  all  kinds, 
through  overtime,  through  piece  work,  through  premiums,  so  that 
the  worker  comes  to  an  average  of  4,000-5,000  rubles  per  month. 
The  wage  is  paid  partly  in  kind,  partly  in  money.  Workers  under 
15  years  are  allowed  to  work  only  6  hours  a  day. 

So  far  Commissar  Schmidt.  But  in  the  factories  I  have  found 
that  many  qualified  workers  earn  much  more  than  the  sums  given 
here ;  they  come  as  high  as  from  10,000  to  15,000  rubles  per  month. 
In  the  factories  I  also  spoke  with  16-year  old  youths,  who  had  al- 
ready for  four  years  worked  8  hours  a  day  at  the  turning  lathe, 
so  that  the  protection  of  the  youth,  which  now  exists  on  paper, 
has  not  yet  been  carried  over  into  reality.  It  may  be  that  the 
decree  on  workers'  insurance  is  partly  carried  out,  but  that  it  is 
not  completely  carried  out  ivas  proven  by  my  observations, 

National  Finance 

In  another  place  in  this  book  we  have  already  discussed  the 
question  whether  we  in  Russia  have  to  do  with  state  capitalism 
or  state  socialism.  The  financial  problem  shows  us  this  question 
in  new  light. 

When  the  November  revolution  of  1917  broke  out  and  went 
o*n  to  victory,  all  large  land  owners  were  dispossessed.  The 
banks  were  nationalized.  Interest  on  money  was  abolished,  pri- 
vate capital  was  changed  into  national  capital.  All  mortgages 
were  annulled.  Tho  government  made  great  efforts  to  collect 
all  the  money  outstanding  on  mortgages,  but  received  only  4 
million  rubles  under  that  head. 

The  most  important  feature  of  the  revolution  on  the  finan- 
cial field  is  the  depreciation  of  money.  The  government  printed 

88 


paper  money  without  regard  to  the  gold  reserve.  These  paper  bills 
are  no  national  debt  certificates,  no  credit  certificates;  they  are 
nothing  but  paper.  The  state  does  not  borrow  and  has  no  cred- 
itors like  the  capitalist  states.  Capitalism,  that  is,  interest  bear- 
ing capital,  is  abolished.  The  money  issued  by  the  bolsheviks 
represents  no  national  debt  and  it  is  not  intended  to  have  it  re- 
deemed by  the  state.  The  security  back  of  it  is  the  wealth  of  the 
country,  the  land,  which  has  become  state  property,  the  forests, 
the  mines,  the  oil  springs,  the  factories  and  the  machinery;  all 
these  are  the  assets  of  the  state.  We  have  also  seen  that  the  bol- 
sheviks in  their  commercial  treaties  with  other  countries  pay  with 
natural  resources,  which  they  turn  over  in  form  of  concessions 
to  the  capitalist  states  for  exploitation,  seeing  that  they  have 
no  possiblity  of  exploiting  them  themselves.  In  consonance  there- 
with the  bolshevik  paper  money  does  not  carry  the  legend  "Loan 
Certificate"  or  "National  Bank  Note"  or  a  statement  to  the  effect 
that  the  state  pays  the  amount  upon  demand,  but  in  6  languages 
it  has  the  words:  "Proletarians  of  all  countries,  unite!" 

This  is  nearly  a  precise  verbal  account  of  an  interview  with 
Minister  of  Finance  Krestinsky.  From  this  we  can  see  that  it  has 
not  been  possible  to  abolish  money,  as  many  socialist  theories 
teach,  but  that  interest  was  abolished  and  therewith  also  the  in- 
come without  work,  which  fell  to  the  rich  through  their  owner- 
ship of  shares  and  other  valuable  papers.  By  this  means,  how- 
ever, only  one  form  of  income  without  work  is  abolished,  though 
it  is  the  most  parasitic  form.  Through  the  retention  of  paper 
notes  it  was  possible  to  make  the  notes  themselves  into  merchan- 
dise just  as  well  as  other  goods.  In  fact,  there  are  in  Russia  a 
great  number  of  currency  speculators.  They  buy  German,  Swed- 
ish, Finnish,  Esthonian  and  Russian  money  and  afterwards  sell  it 
with  a  good  profit.  Naturally,  speculation  is  heavily  punished, 
but  it  is  an  old  truism  that  punishments  do  not  protect  us  from 
misdeeds  or  foolishness.  The  second  form  of  parasitical  income, 
i.  e.,  trade,  is,  consequently,  not  done  away  with,  and  money  keeps 
right  on  existing. 

Third,  through  the  retention  of  money,  the  standard  by  which 
the  value  of  labor  is  measured  continues  to  be  money,  and  it  is 
exactly  for  this  reason  that  money  has  an  independent  magnitude 
and  significance. 

The  circumstance  that  no  private  person  can  draw  money  or 
other  values  from  the  bank  for  a  note,  and  that  the  state  has 
stepped  into  the  place  of  the  private  capitalist,  is  of  far-reaching 
importance.  The  private  person  no  longer  has  the  right  to  demand 
any  material  values  whatsoever  in  the  form  of  inheritance,  etc. ; 
these  values  belong  to  the  whole  people,  to  the  collectivity;  to  the 
state.  Thus  the  financial  system  is  collectivistic  or  part  of  the 
state  business,  in  contradistinction  to  the  capitalist  states,  where 
there  is  private  economy. 

We  have  also  seen  that  in  Russia  there  is  no  private  financial 
system,  but  a  state  financial  system.  The  answering  of  the  ques- 

89 


tion  whether  we  can  speak  of  state  capitalism  or  state  socialism 
in  this  connection,  depends  on  the  definition  of  the  word  capital- 
ism. If  with  capital  we  mean  interest  bearing  values,  sums  of 
money  or  such,  then  we  can  only  speak  of  the  Russian  soviet 
regime  as  state  socialism.  But  if  we  by  capital  mean  the 
sum  total  of  the  values  of  land,  machines,  the  means  of  produc- 
tion and  the  mines,  etc.,  in  short,  the  sum  total  of  the  accumu- 
lated values,  not  of  the  individual,  but  of  the  whole  collectivety, 
then  we  would  strike  the  right  meaning  by  using  the  word  state 
capitalism.  With  capital  and  capitalism,  however,  the  socialists, 
disregarding  all  mo-re  or  less  scientific  and  hair-splitting  explana- 
tions, have  meant  the  power  through  which  the  workers  are  being 
exploited,  through  the  medium  of  private  property  and  the  wage 
system  connected  therewith.  But  that  the  wage  system  exists  not 
only  under  private  ownership  but  also  under  a  collective  or  state 
ownership,  is  demonstrated  to  us  by  the  municipalities,  the  state- 
owned  railways  and  the  nationalized  post  offices,  as  well  as  all 
nationalized  undertakings  in  the  capitalist  state,  on  the  one  side, 
and  in  the  Soviet  republic  on  the  other.  But  for  the  worker  who 
is  employed  by  the  municipal  administration,  the  state  railways 
and  the  post  offices,  their  employer,  even  if  it  is  the  state,  has  the 
same  significance  as  the  private  capitalist  Krupp,  Thyssen  or 
Stinnes.  As  long  ,as  they  are  wage  slaves  they  feel  the  ruling 
power  of  capitalism  and  the  state  over  themselves.  Just  as  little 
as  it  would  occur  to  the  workers  employed  by  a  state  employer 
to  consider  themselves  as  members  of  a  state  socialist  system,  just 
so  is  it  in  the  case  with  Soviet  Russia.  From  now  on  we  must 
recognize  the  word  "state  capitalism"  as  more  correct.  By  so 
doing  we  shall  in  no  way  paint  the  actual  conditions  worse  than 
they  are,  but  have  only  found  a  more  correct  definition,  which  in 
a  concise  way  designates  the  conditions  with  a  single  phrase. 
And  that  is  state  capitalism. 

More  important  than  this  purely  formal  definition  is  the  nat- 
ure of  the  financial  system.  As  a  result  of  the  revolution,  the 
nationalization  of  private  property  and  with  the  cancellation  of 
the  national  debts  of  the  former  governments  came  the  colossal 
crash  of  the  Russian  ruble.  This  is  no  new  phenomenon.  In  the 
French  revolution  of  1789-1793  the  assignats  had  comparatively 
a  still  lower  value  than  the  present  soviet  ruble.  In  Moscow 
(1920)  you  could  for  a  German  mark  obtain  100  soviet  rubles 
from  speculators,  and  for  a  Swedish  crown  500-600  rubles;  the 
rubles  of  the  old  regime  (paper)  are  generally  valued  ten  times 
as  much  as  a  soviet  ruble.  Czar  and  Kerensky  rubles  are  not 
permitted  to  circulate,  but  in  spite  of  this  prohibition  one  finds 
them  in  trade. 

The  increased  cost  of  food  stuffs  which  resulted  from  the 
crash  of  the  ruble,  is  not  by  far  proportional  to  the  fall  in  the 
money  value,  and  the  food  stuffs,  such  as  1  Ib.  of  bread  for  500 
rubles,  is  to-day  more  dearly  bought  than  formerly  at  5  kopek. 
The  soviet  ruble  has,  just  like  the  assignats,  not  sunk  in  this  man- 

90 


ner  through  the  purposes  of  the  politicians  but  through  the  rev- 
olutionary situation.  When  now  the  bolsheviks  declare  that  the  de- 
preciation of  money  was  splendidly  suited  for  the  purpose  of  ban- 
ishing the  spirit  of  capitalism  from  the  thought  of  the  people, 
they  are  only  trying  to  make  a  virtue  out  of  necessity.  Looking 
at  it  one-sidedly,  a  physician  who  treated  me,  may  have  stated 
the  matter  correctly  when  he  said  that  to-day,  with  an  income 
of  30,000  rubles  he  did  not  have  as  much  as  before  with  300 
rubles,  and  that  he  was  not  particular  about  getting  paid  in 
money,  but  would  prefer  to  get  his  pay  in  clothes,  and  what  else 
he  needs  in  order  to  live.  Speaking  subjectively  the  desire  for 
money  is  certainly  curbed,  if  not  altogether  killed. 

But  as  the  workers  do  not  receive  sufficient  food  stuffs  and 
other  articles  of  use,  they  are  compelled  to  continue  the  use  of 
money  in  their  daily  economy.  The  only  difference  between  the 
present  and  past  is  that  one  counts  with  greater  sums,  and  where 
they  formerly  strove  to  get  1  ruble,  they  now  need  1,000.  The 
spirit  of  capitalism  consists  in  this  that  each  one  thinks  only  of 
himself  and  does  not  worry  about  the  weal  and  woe  of  his  fellow 
man.  But  I  must  admit  that  I  have  not  seen  very  much  more  of 
the  disappearance  of  this  spirit  and  its  replacement  by  the  op- 
posite, the  spirit  of  mutual  aid  and  of  socialism,  in  Russia  than  in 
Western  Europe.  On  the  contrary,  one  makes  the  observation, 
that  the  people  in  Russia,  generally,  are  more  greedy  than  for  in- 
stance, in  Sweden.  But  this  we  must  blame  on  the  long  war, 
which  has  demoralized  people,  as  well  as  on  the  economic  distress. 
Poverty  brings  misdeeds  and  depravity,  but  prosperity  restores 
things  again. 

The  depreciation  of  money  and  above  all,  in  connection  there- 
with, the  shortage  of  goods,  has  brought  this  with  it,  that  the 
workers,  and  still  more  the  peasants,  prefer  to  exchange  products 
against  products;  for  they  know  that,  even  if  they  have  the 
money,  they  cannot  get  what  they  need,  as  it  is  not  to  be  had  in 
the  country.  This  explains  why  they  will  exchange  a  hen  for  a 
glass  of  salt,  and  the  like.  But,  as  already  indicated,  we  must 
ascribe  this  direct  exchange  of  goods,  not  so  much  to  the  deprecia- 
tion of  money  but  rather  to  the  lack  of  products. 

Of  late  the  policy  of  the  Soviet  government  is  ever  more  in 
the  direction  of  replacing  the  money  wage  with  the  wage  in  kind. 
This  would  be  equal  to  the  abolition  of  money  if  it  were  carried 
out  completely,  but  for  the  present  it  has  not  gone  so  far.  It 
is  possible  that  they  will  arrive  at  this  stage,  especially  if  a  sim- 
ilar movement  starts  in  other  countries.  But  if  capitalism  in 
Western  and  Middle  Europe  keeps  alive,  then  this  hope  is  very 
poor.  The  concession  policy  which  Russia  now  follows  will  again 
inject  new  life  into  the  money  system  in  Soviet  Russia.  Foreign 
capitalism,  English  and  American,  which  is  stronger  than  Russian 
capitalism  ever  was,  will  step  into  the  latter's  place.  Of  all  the 
results  obtained  in  the  revolution  there  will  then  remain  only  the 
labor  laws  pertaining  to  insurance  and  workers'  relief. 

91 


The  Soviets  (Councils) 

The  council  idea  is  not  new.  It  always  comes  up  wherever 
the  people,  the  working  masses  themselves  directly  try  to  or- 
ganize their  life  with  full  independence  and  with  the  elimina- 
tion of  unnecessary  between-hands  or  middlemen.  The  times  in 
which  people  mostly  get  into  this  position  are  the  times  when 
old  authorities  are  being  overthrown,  that  is,  In  times  of  revolu- 
tion. During  the  great  French  revolution  the  Parisians  elected  in 
their  sections  the  organs  which  we  to-day  would  call  councils  or 
Soviets. 

But  disregarding  the  fact  that  the  council  idea  always  has 
risen  to  the  surface  in  revolutionary  times,  the  anti-authoritarian 
socialists,  anarchists  and  syndicalists  were  the  ones  who  stood 
nearest  to  the  council  idea.  Only  an  ignorant  person  could  take 
the  notion  to  deny  that  this  is  so.  This  springs  from  the  anti- 
authoritarian  world  conception  of  the  doctrines  mentioned.  The 
anarchists  have  always  proclaimed  the  formula:  Peasant,  to  you 
belongs  the  land;  factory  worker,  to  you  belongs  the  factory; 
miner,  to  you  belongs  the  mine.  The  syndicalists  made  it  their 
aim,  not  to  conquer  political  power — for  that  purpose  no  councils 
were  necessary — but  to  take  possession  of  the  economic  power, 
the  land,  the  factories,  the  mines,  the  means  of  transportation, 
etc.,  through  the  workers  who  are  there  employed.  In  order 
to  carry  this  out,  the  workers  and  the  peasants  must  manage 
these  establishments.  But  not  all  can  do  this  at  once;  for  this 
purpose  they  must  elect  trustees  in  the  factory,  on  the  country- 
estate,  in  the  mines,  and  so  on.  And  there  we  have  the  council 
idea.  The  workers  in  the  factories  elect  factory  councils;  in  the 
country,  peasant  councils;  and  for  regulating  the  affairs  in  the 
community,  community  councils.  Thus  we  see,  in  fact,  that  the 
socialist  labor  movement — which  from  the  beginning  renounced 
parliamentarian  representation  and  for  the  realization  of  social- 
ism and  communist  anarchism  chose  the  direct  road  through  the 
workers — was  the  most  qualified,  yes,  we  may  even  say,  the  only 
carrier  of  the  council  idea.  If  in  the  present  revolutionary  times 
even  others,  besides  anarchists  and  syndicalists,  are  in  favor  of 
the  direct  way,  the  direct  action,  such  as  bolsheviks  and  com- 
munists, then  they  can  also,  of  course,  claim  to  represent  the 
council  idea  to  the  same  extent  as  they  uphold  the  direct  method. 
But  it  is  necessary  to  remind  the  "November  socialists,"  wh< 
before  and  during  the  war  were  for  the  largest  part  social  pat- 
riots and  who  now  pose  as  "the  only  representatives  of  the  coun- 
cil system,"  of  the  priority  of  the  anarchists  and  the  syndicalists, 
in  order  to  bridle  their  imagination  a  little.  The  Spanish  anarchists 
have  really  for  decades  propagated  the  council  idea,  so  that  it  is 
possible  to  even  point  out  concrete  examples. 

It  has  also  been  shown  that  the  soviet  or  council  idea  is  no\ 
a  newly  invented  patent  of  the  Russian  bolsheviks,  but  that  11 
emerged  from  the  Russian  revolution  and  was  represented  by  all 

92 


revolutionaries,  not  only  the  bolsheviks,  but  also  the  left  social- 
revolutionaries,  the  anarchists,  the  syndicalists  arid  the  maximal- 
ists. When  the  October  revolution  broke  out  and  the  workers 
elected  their  councils  (in  Russian:  Soviets),  there  were  elected  to 
the  Kronstadt  soviet  105  maximalists,  95  bolsheviks,  76  social 
revolutionaries,  and  12  anarchists.  But  the  latter  had,  according 
to  a  statement  of  the  maximalist  leader,  a  great  influence.  In  most 
cities  the  workers  and  the  peasants  elected  Soviets,  and  the  bol- 
sheviks were  by  no>  means  always  in  the  majority. 

Originally  the  soviet  formation  was  quite  spontaneous. 
Later  a  system  was  created  out  of  this  sudden  movement  which 
then  was  anchored  in  the  constitution.  In  Germany  the  anchoring 
of  the  council  system  in  the  constitution  meant  the  annihilation 
of  the  free  councils.  But  in  Germany  the  bourgeois  constitution 
with  Parliament  and  "Reichstag';  was  retained.  In  Russia  the 
revolutionary  workers  (not  the  bolsheviks  alone  but  all  the  rev- 
olutionary workers)  had  the  power  to  dissolve  the  constituent 
assembly  (by  us  called  the  national  assembly)  and  to  lay  the 
soviet  system,  not  only  as  an  ornament  in  the  basket  of  the 
bourgeois  parliamentarian  constitution,  but  made  it  the  sole  foun- 
dation for  the  building  of  the  whole  new  state  structure.  The 
constitution  of  the  Russian  Socialist  Federative  Soviet  Republic 
is,  as  the  name  indicates,  exclusively  a  soviet  constitution.  The 
decisions  providing  for  a  soviet  constitution  were  adopted  on 
July  10,  1918,  by  an  All-Russian  Soviet  Congress. 

The  Russian  soviet  (council)  constitution  is  so  built  that  in 
the  cities  the  workers  elect  a  city  soviet  from  their  factories,  bur- 
eaus or  shops.  The  Moscow  soviet  has  400  members,  and  the  pres- 
ident is  Kamenieff.  In  the  country,  gouvemement  Soviets  are 
elected.  These  gouvernement  Soviets  meet  every  half  year  in  con- 
gress. In  the  Samara  go>uvernement  are  3%  million  electors, 
which  are  represented  in  the  congress  by  300  delegates.  The  All- 
Russian  Soviet  Congress  consists  of  representatives  of  all  the  city 
Soviets,  who  send  a  representative  for  each  25,000  electors,  and 
of  the  representatives  of  the  gouvernement  Soviets,  who  send  a 
representative  for  each  125,000  of  population.  These  rules  will  be 
found  in  the  constitution  of  the  Russian  republic,  Article  25.  This 
All-Russian  Soviet  Congress  is  called  in  at  least  twice  a  year  by 
the  All-Russian  Central  Executive  Committee.  The  All-Russian 
Central  Executive  Committee  is  elected  by  the  Afl-Russian  Soviet 
Congress  and  consists  of  at  most  200  members.  This  executive 
committee  is  the  highest  authority  outside  of  the  congress.  It 
forms  the  Soviet  (Council)  of  People's  Commissars,  who  may  be 
compared  to  the  cabinet  ministers  in  the  capitalist  states.  There 
are  18  different  People's  Commissariats. 

On  the  functions  of  the  individual  commissariats  I  have 
already  reported  here.  But  whoever  wishes  to  study  these  matters 
more  in  detail  will  find  it  in  the  flood  of  bolshevik  propaganda 
literature  which  may  be  obtained  in  all  languages. 

93 


More  important  it  seems  to  me  to  point  out  here  what  1 
have  observed  in  Russia  in  regard  to  the  functioning  of  the  pres- 
ent Soviets,  which  is  something  one  does  not  find  in  the  bolshevik 
literature  mentioned.  Then  we  must  first  call  your  attention  to 
the  circumstance  that  the  Soviets  have  lost  a  good  deal  of  their 
independence  and  freedom  through  the  so-called  soviet  constitu- 
tion. The  Soviets  were  mixed  up  with  the  state.  The  Soviets  are 
a  revolutionary  institution,  but  the  state  is  and  remains,  in  spite 
of  the  most  beautiful  recitations  of  the  bolshevik  about  the  pro- 
letarian state,  a  reactionary  institution.  It  will,  therefore,  not  be 
surprising  that  the  original  council  system  has  also  become  reac- 
tionary in  the  same  measure  as  it  was  mixed  up  with  the  state. 
That  will  appear  already  from  the  elections.  The  bolsheviks  may 
assert  ever  so  loudly  that  it  is  principally  the  workers  who  elect 
them  and  that  the  course  of  the  revolution  shows  that  the  work- 
ers are  ever  more  turning  to  the  bolsheviks,  as  can  be  seen  from 
the  elections,  that  the  majority  in  all  Soviets  consists  of  bolsheviks. 
But  this  changes  nothing  in  the  fact  that  the  bolsheviks  are  in  th( 
majority  because  they  themselves  make  the  majority. 

Without  for  a  moment  allowing  myself  to  be  intimidated  b; 
the  loud  outcries  of  the  bolsheviks,  who  brand  everybody  making 
these  assertions  as  a  counter-revolutionary,  I  must  mention  som< 
examples.  The  workers  in  a  Moscow  munition  factory,  the  name 
of  which  I  have  forgotten,  elected  as  their  representative  in  th( 
Moscow  soviet  the  anarchist  Gordin.  This  was  in  the  first  months 
of  1920.  The  election  of  Gordin  was  not  recognized  by  the  bol- 
sheviks, and  for  this  factory  new  elections  were  announced.  H( 
was  again  elected.  Because  his  electors  as  well  as  he  himself 
stood  fast  by  the  election  he  was  arrested  and  given  two  months 
in  prison  as  a  "demagogue/'  Such  names  they  have  always  al 
hand.  But  the  workers  of  this  factory  did  not  elect  any  othei 
soviet  member  and  remained  during  that  legislative  period  with- 
out representation  in  the  Moscow  soviet.  Besides  this  case  the] 
are  many,  many  cases  when  the  election  has  been  declared 
and  void  by  the  ruling  pa\rty.  As  this  is  an  every-day  occur- 
rence the  people  no  longer  get  excited  about  it.  As  Gordin  tol< 
me  his  case  in  the  presence  of  many  witnesses,  he  laughed  over  il 
when  I  found  the  case  amazing.  In  Samara  there  is  a  munitioi 
factory  which  at  the  outbreak  of  the  revolution  employed  23,00( 
workers.  These  elected  members  to  the  Samara  soviet.  When 
visited  the  factory  on  May  21,  1920,  there  were  only  1,600  peopL 
working  there.  A  year  before  the  bolsheviks  had  dissolved  th< 
executive  committee  of  the  Workers'  and  Peasants'  Council  of  th< 
gouvernement  Samara,  because  they  did  not  have  the  majority 
therein.  The  opposing  parties,  however,  did  not  want  to  under- 
take anything  at  that  moment  because  the  rich  peasants  were  jusl 
making  a  counter-revolutionary  attempt,  and  thus  the  dissolutioi 
of  the  executive  committee  of  the  soviet  was  accomplished  with- 
out friction.  But  in  the  same  year  only  1,000  people  worked  in 
that  factory,  because  they  were  out  fighting  the  Czecho-Slovaks 

94 


who  had  taken  Kasan  and  were  in  the  neighborhood  of  Samara. 
The  bolsheviks  did  not  hold  any  new  elections  to  replace  the  city 
soviet  elected  while  there  were  23,000  workers.  The  reason  was 
that  in  that  soviet  the  bolsheviks  had  the  majority.  Through  such 
illegalities  they  held  the  whole  gouvernment  in  check,  but  it  was 
a  representation  which  did  not  reflect  the  real  conditions. 

But,  apart  from  these  cases,  which  are  not  by  far  exhausted 
with  the  above  related  ones,  the  bolsheviks  have  another  method 
of  securing  the  majority  in  the  soviet.  The  bolsheviks  are  the 
ruling  state  party.  The  paper  is  nationalized;  the  printshops, 
the  houses,  in  brief,  everything  belongs  to  the  state  and  is,  there- 
fore, in  the  hands  of  the  bolshevik  party.  Thus,  only  this  party 
is  in  a  position  to  carry  on  an  election  agitation;  what  wonder 
then  if  they  receive  the  most  votes  and  the  most  seats.  And  in 
spite  of  all  that,  it  happens  that  the  mensheviks  or  the  left  social- 
revolutionaries  receive  considerable  numbers  of  votes. 

From  all  this  it  is  evident  that  in  the  Russian  Soviet  Repub- 
lic the  Soviets  only  to  a  small  extent  are  the  expression  of  the 
free  will  of  the  workers  and  the  peasants.  A  peculiar  light  is 
thrown  on  the  government  Soviets  of  Russia  by  a  resolution 
adopted  by  the  Russian-Ukrainian  anarchists  of  the  "Nabat"  in 
their  last  congress,  held  in  Charkov  3-8  September.  It  says,  among 
other  things,  about  the  relationship  to  the  soviet  power: 

"In  the  beginning  of  the  soviet  power  we  extended  to  it 
o>ur  great  confidence.  But  after  the  revolution-born  soviet 
power,  in  the  course  of  three  years,  had  become  a  powerful 
state  machine,  it  has  throttled  the  revolution.  It  developed 
into  a  dictatorship  of  the  proletariat  over  the  bourgeoisie, 
into  a  dictatorship  of  one  party,  and  of  a  small  part 
of  the  proletariat  over  the  whole  proletariat,  over  the  whole 
working  people,  while  at  the  same  time  this  dictatorship 
throttles  the  will  of  the  broad  working  masses.  Through  this 
the  revolution  lost  the  creative  power  by  which  alone  it  was 
possible  to  solve  the  different  problems  of  the  revolution.  The 
soviet  power  is,  therefore,  a  lesson  and  a  warning  to  the 
workers  of  all  countries.  This  conference  proposes  to  the 
comrades  to  boycott  the  administrations  and  Soviets  which 
are  controlled  by  the  government  and  to  devote  all  their 
powers  of  propaganda  to  this  purpose  among  the  lower  strata 
of  the  workers.  We  must  start  with  illegal  groups  and  gather 
all  revolutionary  material  around  us." 

Besides,  in  the  "report  over  the  situation  in  Russia,"   we 
read: 

"At  the  same  time  as  world  imperialism  convulsively 
clings  to  each  opportunity  to  strangle  Soviet  Russia,  as  the 
home  and  the  source  of  revolutionary  infection,  there  is  tak- 
ing place  in  Russia  itself  a  sad  decomposition  of  the  revolu- 
tion. Instead  of  the  united  mass  of  workers  which  in  the 
October  days  of  1917  fought  in  Russia  for  the  conquest  of 

95 


bread,  we  now  have  a  division  of  the  working  masses  into 
masters  and  servants,  governing  and  governed,  rulers  and 
subjects.    The  party  of  the  so-called  communists,  which  pos- 
sesses an  unlimited  power,  forms  the  centralized  soviet  gov- 
ernment with  all  its  central  committees,  city,  district  and 
gouvernement  committees,  etc.   The  right  of  the  workers  and 
peasants  to  elect  free  councils  has  become  a  fiction.   From  the 
community  soviet  up  to  the  Ail-Russian  Congress  of  Soviets, 
from  the  congress  of  the  unions  to  the  so;-called  free,  non- 
partisan  peasant  conferences  there  is  nothing  free,  but  every- 
thing is  undermined  by  the  party.   A  Gigantid  system  of  es- 
pionage has  been  established.   Under  the  pretense  of  a  strug- 
gle with  the   counter-revolution,  the   communist  party  has 
laid  its  hand  heavily  upon  the  working  population  through 
its  "Partkom"   (party  committees  which  are  formed  every- 
where).   The  press  is  strangled.    There  is  no  free  exchange 
of  opinion,  either  in  the  street,  or  in  the  house,  or  in  the 
meetings,  or  on  the  job.   In  the  street  the  "Tscheka"  (extra 
ordinary  commission)  is  spying;  in  the  house  the  "do\mkom' 
(house  committee  of  the  communist  party,  if  a  party  com 
munist  lives  in  the  house)  ;  on  the  job  in  the  factory  th( 
"fabkom"  (factory  committee  of  the  communist  party) .   Far 
far  from  the  lower  strata  of  the  workers  the  "Sovnarkom' 
(Council  of  People's  Commissars)  has  formed  a  strong  gov 
ernment,  which  rests  upon  a  strong  army.    The  governmen 
has  changed  into  a  body  whose  interests  are  opposed  to  those 
of  the  revolution." 

These  descriptions  of  the  situation  offer  extremely  valuabl< 
material  for  the  understanding  of  the  present  character  of  the 
Soviets. 

From  all  this  we  must  draw  the  conclusion  that  the  Soviets 
and  the  soviet  government  are  not  one  and  the  same  thing,  bul 
two  different  things,  of  which  the  first  one  is  the  natural  expres 
sion  of  the  revolutionary  people,  while  the  second  one  is  the  hard 
frozen  forms  of  a  clique  that  has  come  into  power.  As  a  liberty 
loving  revolutionist  one  can  very  well  accept  the  first  but  must 
look  upon  the  latter  very  critically.  In  view  of  the  circumstance 
that  the  bolsheviks  and  communists  always  call  attention  to  one 
side  of  the  soviet  power,  it  is  proper  for  the  syndicalists  to  show 
up  the  other  side,  in  order  that  all  workers  in  the  portentous 
hours  which  are  immediately  ahead  may  be  able  to  draw  a  lesson 
therefrom  and  with  Argus  eyes  guard  their  own  freedom  anc 
their  elected  Soviets.  It  would  mean  putting  the  garden  in  charge 
of  the  goat  if  the  workers  of  other  countries,  after  adopting  the 
soviet  system,  were  to  see  a  road  to  the  realization  of  their 
economic  mid  political  freedom  in  a  political  government 
Mark  that  we  here  only  speak  of  the  revolutionary  and  progress- 
ive workers  and  not  of  the  bourgeoisie.  Factory  councils  for  the 
managing  of  the  factories;  peasant  and  agricultural  workers' 
councils  for  the  management  of  agriculture;  community  councils 

96 


for  regulating  the  affairs  of  the  community;  finally,  federations 
of  the  single  unions  as  well  as  of  the  industrial  unions;  but  also 
federations  of  the  community  councils  or  labor  bureaus.  These 
are  the  organizations  of  the  revolution;  but  they  must  never  be 
allowed  to  converge  into  a  state,  for  only  through  the  absence 
of  the  state  is  freedom  guaranteed,  in  spite  of  all  well  or  ill-meant 
assurances  of  the  bolsheviks  about  the  necessity  of  state  or  pro- 
letarian dictatorship. 

The  Red  Army 

In  the  Red  Army  the  Communist  Party  of  Russia  had  a 
powerful  weapon  for  maintaining  its  power.  And  it  continues 
to  be  such  up  to  the  present  day.  That  the  creating  of  such 
an  army  from  the  wreckage  of  the  czarist  armies,  after  the  all- 
destroying  world  war,  was  a  notable  achievement,  shall  not  be 
denied  here.  And  whether  this  army  could  hold  its  own  against 
an  army  of  Prussian  or  French  militarism,  that  will  remain  an 
open  question. 

What  is  more  important  to  us  here  is  the  character  of  the 
Red  Army,  The  Red  Army  is  an  army  like  every  other.  It  can 
exist  and  meet  with  success  only  by  maintaining  the  strictest  war 
and  military  morale:  discipline,  obedience.  But  that  these  quali- 
ties should  be  especially  suitable  to  the  development  of  men  into 
socialists  and  communists,  is  something  that  no  man,  if  he  wants 
to  be  honest,  can  truthfully  state.  For  the  maintenance  and  the 
efficiency  of  an  army  those  slave  characteristics  are  of  incalculable 
worth,  as  they  are  an  integral  part  of  an  army.  Without  using 
much  circumlocution  we  can  make  the  statement  that  militarism 
is  the  mortal  enemy  of  the  freedom  of  the  individual  and  thus 
also  the  greatest  enemy  of  socialist  development.  Not  only  is  the 
statement  true  that  "as  long  as  we  have  armies,  so  long  will  there 
be  war,"  but  also  the  statement  that  "as  long  as  there  is  an  army, 
no  socialist  development  can  prosper." 

Going  out  from  these  idealistic  considerations  the  true  social- 
ist and  champion  of  freedom  must  also  be  an  anti-militarist.  But 
from  historic  considerations  one  may  take  a  different  position  and 
consider  the  Red  Ar\my  as  necessary. 

If  Trotsky  from  an  historical  standpoint  seeks,  as  a  Marxian, 
to  establish  the  necessity  of  the  Red  Army  through  proofs  and 
arguments,  it  would,  of  course,  be  easy  for  a  representative  of  the 
opposite  standpoint,  if  he  only  has  the  ability  and  the  skill,  to 
present  as  many  or,  perhaps,  still  more  proofs  for  an  opposite 
standpoint.  But  this  would  only  be  a  theoretical,  speculative  dis- 
cussion, such  as  we  find  in  Trotzky's  anti-Kautsky  book  "Terror- 
ism and  Communism." 

Instead  of  carrying  on  all  this  discussion  I  might  point  to 
the  fact  that  in  Russia  itself  not  all  revolutionaries  agree  with 
Trotzky's  viewpoint.  In  the  question  of  defending  the  revolution 

97 


the  bolsheviks  take  the  standpoint  that  without  the  Red  Army 
the  revolution  would  have  been  vanquished  by  the  counter-revolu- 
tion, and  that,  therefore,  the  Red  Army,  as  a  savior  of  the  revolu- 
tion, is  one  of  the  first  revolutionary  factors.  If  it  had  not  been 
for  the  Red  Army,  some  reactionary  general  or  a  new  czar  would 
now  be  ruling  in  Russia,  that  is,  in  short,  the  standpoint  of  the 
bolsheviks. 

The  maximalists,  a  large  part  of  the  syndicalists,  the  anarch- 
ists and  a  part  of  the  left  social-revolutionaries  take  an  oppo- 
site standpoint.  Against  the  first  assertion  they  put  another  one, 
namely,  that  it  is  not  the  Red  Army  which  has  saved  the  revolu- 
tion and  beaten  down  the  counter-revolution,  but  the  revolutionary 
workers  and  peasants  would  have  defended  the  revolution  even 
without  the  Red  Army. 

As  examples  they  mention:  When  general  Korniloff  marched 
against  Moscow,  it  was  not  the  Red  Army  by  which  he  was  con- 
quered. At  that  time  there  was  not  yet  a  Red  Army.  It  was  other 
parts  of  the  same  czarist  army  with  him  which  turned  and  foughl 
him  and  proved  to  be  the  strongest.  For  the  workers  and  peasants 
who  fought  in  the  czarist  army,  but  against  Korniloff,  this  Kornil- 
off was  a  counter-revolutionary,  who  wanted  to  force  them  to  con- 
tinue the  war.  For  that  reason  it  was  necessary  to  fight  Korniloff 
if  peace  was  to  come.  But  this  does  not  speak  for  the  Red  Army, 
which  then  did  not  exist,  it  speaks  solely  for  the  urge  of  liberty 
among  the  people. 

According  to  the  viewpoint  of  the  mentioned  tendencies  the 
bolsheviks  make  the  conscious  mistake  that  they  consider  the  R< 
Army  equal  to  an  armed  uprising  of  the  people. 

Further,  the  syndicalists  and  the  related  tendencies  point  t<. 
the  fact  that  it  was  not  the  Red  Army  that  drove  the  Ger- 
mans and  the  Austrians  out  of  Ukraine,  but  the  peasants  them- 
selves, the  partisans,  the  leaders,  the  insurgents.  By  guerilla  war- 
fare in  small  partisan  groups  they  chased  the  Germans  away  or 
blocked  them  in  such  a  manner  that  finally  they  were  compellec 
to  retreat  from  the  country. 

Nor  was  Denekin  in  the  first  line  conquered  by  the  Red  Arm\ 
but  by  the  peasants  themselves,  who  would  not  stand  for  his  rule, 
and,  principally  under  Ataman  Batkno  Machno,  they  made  rebel- 
lion against  Denekin.    If  the  peasants  had  been  for  Denekin  am 
not  against  him,  then  the  Red  Army  would  have  never  succeedec 
in  conquering  Denekin.    But  at  the  same  time  we  must  not  forgel 
that  the  peasants  in  no  manner  voluntarily  formed  the  Red  Army. 
The  peasants  got  into  the  Red  Army  when  compelled  to,  thei 
being    a    compulsory  military  service,    just   as  formerly  for  th( 
czar's  army.   The  peasants  rather  organized  their  own  armies,  o1 
which  the  strongest  one  was  Machno's,  in  order  to  fight  against 
reaction.   And  as  it  went  ivith  Denikin,  so  it  went  with  Kaledin, 
Petljura  and  others. 

In  regard  to  Ukraine  the  bolsheviks  admit  this,  more  or  less, 

98 


as  facts  cannot  very  well  be  denied.  They  seek  to  support  their 
contention  with  the  statement  that  Koltschak  and  the  Czecho- 
slovaks have  been  conquered  by  the  Red  Army.  The  commandant 
of  the  later  Red  Armies  against  the  Czecko-Slovaks,  an  anarchist 
by  the  name  of  Gebenjeff^  also  called  Alexa,  has  told  me  how  the 
thing  happened.  When  in  May,  1918,  the  Czecko-Slovaks  began 
their  advance  from  Siberia,  the  workers,  anarchists,  left  social- 
revolutionaries  and  bolsheviks,  arming  themselves,  united  against 
the  Czecko-Slovaks.  They  elected  Gebenjeff  their  commander, 
and  they  were  the  shock  troops  of  the  reds  against  the  whites. 
Now  the  bolsheviks  call  this  the  "red  army."  But  attention 
should  be  called  to  the  fact  that  these  troops  did  not  yet  in  any 
way  have  the  characteristics  of  the  Red  Army,  namely,  compul- 
sory mobilization,  unified  centralist  command  under  Trotzky, 
subordination  and  blind  discipline.  Nothing  of  this  nature  was 
to  be  found  among  the  armed  peasants.  They  had  met  voluntarily 
to  fight  against  the  reactionaries,  and  it  is  this  that  is  the  most 
striking  difference  between  them  and  the  Red  Army.  And,  of 
course,  I  have  later  heard  these  soldiers  of  the  revolution  referred 
to  by  bolsheviks  as  the  "Red  Army."  If  this  is  done,  then  we  can 
call  everything  by  the  name  of  the  Red  Army  which  has  the 
slightest  resemblance  to  armed  insurrection.  But  that  would  mean 
gross  confusion  of  expressions. 

In  the  struggle  against  Koltschak  it  was  not  the  Red  Army 
that  should  have  the  credit  for  his  annihilation.  And  here  I  must 
take  a  stand  with  the  revolutionary  groups  which  are  opposed  to 
the  Red  Army,  because  the  facts  related  to  me  by  high  Soviet 
officials  themselves  speak  for  it.  The  brother  of  the  deceased  pres- 
ident of  the  Russian  Soviet  Republic,  Sverdloy,  the  second  in 
command  after  Trotzky  in  the  Commissariat,  having  charge  of  the 
whole  defense,  told  me  during  a  trip  on  the  Volga,  which  we  made 
together,  that  even  before  the  Red  Army  advanced,  the  peas- 
ants and  the  workers  rose  in  rebellion  in  all  places  against  Kolt- 
schak and  in  many  cases  conquered  his  troops.  The  Red  Army 
entered  Tomsk  on  Dec.  26,  1919.  But  long  before  this  the  peas- 
ants had  rebelled  against  Koltschak's  rule.  Many  of  Koltschak's 
soldiers  joined  them,  and  the  city  of  Tomsk  was  in  the  hands  of 
the  rebels  for  a  long  time  before  the  Red  Army  entered.  As  early 
as  the  summer  of  1918  the  peasants  had  formed  guerilla  bands 
against  the  Czecko-Slovaks  and  Koltschak.  -This  was  in  the  prov- 
inces Atscheisk  and  Jenniseisk  and  in  the  Altei  gouvernement. 

The  cause  of  the  great  rebellions  of  peasants  and  workers 
against  Koltschak  was  his  reactionary  behavior.  Sverdlov,  who 
was  in  technical  charge  of  the  transportation  expedition  of  the 
Red  Army  operating  against  Koltschak,  related  that  terrible  epi- 
demics harrowed  Koltschak's  troops.  Over  80%  of  them  were  sick 
from  typhus.  The  epidemic  spread  to  the  people.  At  Novo  Nicol- 
ajevsk  10,000  bodies  were  found.  Between  Omsk  and  Nicolajevsk 
15,000  graves  were  found  with  crosses.  All  were  victims  of 
typhus.  Koltschak  himself  lived  in  the  midst  of  these  terrors 

99 


without  caring  what  happened  around  him.  He  had  a  special  train 
with  music  and  women  and  led  a  fast  life.  His  generals  shot  the 
revolutionary  workers  of  the  factories  wherever  they  could  get 
hold  of  them.  In  Tomsk  all  the  factory  committees  were  put  in 
jail.  Every  one  suspected  of  being  a  bolshevik  or  of  some 
other  revolutionary  color  was  subjected  to  a  Spanish  torture 
and  finally  shot.  In  the  year  of  1919  Koltschak  sent  a  trainload 
of  dead  from  Asia  to  Europe. 

In  view  of  such  conduct  it  is  easy  to  understand  that  the 
peasants  and  workers  would  rise  against  Koltschak  and  fight  him. 
It  was,  in  the  first  place,  the  peasants  and  workers  rebelling 
against  this  ghastly  rule  who  annihilated  Koltschak,  and  not  the 
Red  Army.  All  that  the  Red  Army  had  to  do,  according  to 
Sverdlov's  report,  was  to  relieve  the  peasants  and  the  workers, 
who,  together  with  the  revolting  elements  of  Koltschaks'  army, 
had  already  conquered  the  Koltschak  officers.  Even  here  it  was 
the  federalistically  aggregated  bands  of  peasants  and  workers 
who  performed  the  greatest  work  in  combatting  reaction  and  not 
the  centralistically  organized  Red  Army,  formed  through  com- 
pulsory mobilization. 

And  even  the  liberation  of  Petrograd  from  the  armies  of 
Judenitsch  is  more  the  merit  of  the  Petrograd  workers,  who  in 
the  hour  of  danger  went,  all  united,  against  the  threatening  army. 
As  commander  of  Petrograd,  Bill  Shatoff,  a  Russian-American 
I.  W.  W.  and  an  anarchist,  w,as  elected  and  in  the  hour  of  highest 
danger  the  workers  put  Judenitsch  to  flight,  after  he  had  already 
penetrated  into  the  streets  of  the  Petrograd  suburbs. 

Moved  by  all  these  instances,  all  revolutionary  socialist  ten- 
dencies in  Russia  who  oppose  centralism  and  in  centralism  see  a 
reactionary  element  are  against  the  idea  of  ,a  Red  Army.  They 
declare  that  the  Red  Army  is  not  a  revolutionary  but  a  counter- 
revolutionary factor,  because,  with  its  system  of  centralism,  the 
obedience  of  unfree  subjects  is  again  introduced  into  the  ranks 
of  revolutionaries  and  freedom  is  suppressed.  But  they  are  by  no 
means  opponents  of  the  armed  uprisings  of  the  people.  They  point 
to  the  fact  that  they  always  stood  in  the  first  ranks  of  the  revolu- 
tionary fighters  and  stand  there  still,  and  when  the  bolsheviks 
say  the  armed  uprising  of  the  revolutionary  people  and  the  Red 
Army  with  its  compulsory  mobilization,  are  the  same  they  declare 
this  to  be  a  conscious  falsehood. 

The  defeats  that  the  Red  Army  suffered  in  Poland  gave 
birth  to  grave  conflicts  within  the  Communist  Party  itself.  At 
the  beginning  of  the  war  against  Poland  I  just  arrived  in  Moscow 
as  the  first  big  army  show,  a  parade  on  Theatralnaja  Square, 
took  place.  The  next  day,  May  6,  1920,  Karl  Radek  explained 
to  me  how  greatly  important  the  taking  up  of  General  Brussilov 
was  for  the  Red  Army.  "When  Lloyd  George  reads  about  that," 
Radek  said  to  me,  "he,  and  with  him  all  English  government 
politicians,  will  say  to  themselves,  that  the  bolsheviks  cannot 
be  so  bad,  after  all,  when  a  man  like  Brussilov  can  work 

100 


together  with  them."  I  was  from  the  beginning  not  very  much 
edified  by  this  taking  up  of  the  old  reactionary  generals  and 
officers  in  the  Red  Army  and  said  this  to  Radek.  With  him 
it  was  only  a  case  of  making  a  great  effect.  They  took  up  all 
the  old  czarist  officers  for  service  in  the  Red  Army.  But  with 
them  came  the  old  czarist  spirit,  the  spirit  of  the  blackest 
reaction  in  the  proletarian  army,  which  was  to  battle  for  the 
liberation  of  the  oppressed.  The  results  of  this  policy  soon  became 
apparent.  Proletarian  unity  and  leadership  slipped  ever  more 
into  the  hands  of  the  bourgeois  and  feudal  elements  of  the 
old  czarist  officers.  Former  estate  owners  and  bourgeois  hold 
responsible  posts  in  the  Red  Army  and  use  their  position  to 
make  their  influence  felt.  Thus  the  Red  Army  became  more  and 
more  an  instrument  in  the  hands  of  these  elements.  The  soldiers 
of  the  Red  Army  have  long  ago  ceased  to  feel  personal  respon- 
sibility for  the  victories  and  defeats  of  the  whole  army  as  the 
case  is  when  compulsory  mobilization  is  taken  away.  They  are 
a  blind  will-less  tool  in  the  hands  of  the  generals  commanding 
them;  they  no  longer  recognize  the  battle  they  fight  as  their 
own  battle.  The  communists  of  the  Red  Army  are  the  only 
volunteers  who  still  fight  with  enthusiasm.  The  evil  results  of  tak- 
ing up  so  many  old  officers,  the  bolsheviks  wanted  to  counteract 
by  establishing  officers'  schools  for  communist  workers  (and  under 
certain  conditions  also  for  non-communists,  although  this  occurs 
more  seldom)  in  which  schools  the  young  communists  are 
trained  to  become  officers.  Among  these  I  have  found  true 
inspiration,  an  inspiration  for  the  red  war  and  for  the  victory 
of  the  red  army.  And,  too,  there  are  among-  the  old  officers 
some  converts  who  have  become  honest^  inspired  :rew)lutipi;.s,ries. 
To  these  belongs  General  Nikolajev,  w}i<o.  w;as! Changed  'on-  -the 
gallows  by  Judenitsch  in  Jamburg  because  he  as  an  important 
leader  served  the  Red  Army  with  great  devotion.  But  on  the 
whole  these  exceptions  confirm  the  rule. 

The  bolsheviks  themselves  now  see  the  untenable  situation 
in  the  Red  Army  and  gave  expression  to  this  fact  at  their 
party  conference  in  Moscow  in  October  1920.  Zinoviev  said: 

"Comrade  Trotzky  told  us  after  his  return  from  the 
front  that  there  he  had  seen  hundreds  of  comrades  who 
deny  themselves  everything,  who  do  not  eat  themselves 
satisfied.  They  live  on  the  small  rations,  and  are  thereby 
reduced  to  skin  and  bone,  and  still  they  work  very  hard,  in 
order  to  save  the  honor  of  our  party  at  the  front.  But 
there  is  no  doubt  that  alongside  of  them  among  the  soldiers 
there  is  a  different  stratum.  Yes,  a  whole  stratum.  No 
matter  how  numerojjg  this  stratum  is,  it  is  there.  The  people 
conceive  of  their  rights  and  their  duties  differently;  These 
are  the  elements  who  rob  the  party  of  their  credit  which 
has  been  won  through  heavy  sacrifices  and  the  hard  work  of 
tens  of  thousands  of  our  first  and  intermediate  party  mem- 

101 


bers.  Certain  communists,  who  have  been  mobilized  and  sent 
to  the  front,  work  and  live  there  in  such  a  manner  that 
they  with  right  can  complain." 

I  could  mention  many  other  instances  which  have  been 
told  me  by  people,  (communists  and  non-communists)  returning 
from  the  Polish  front,  but  I  had  much  rather  allow  only  Comrade 
Zinoviev  speak,  because  he  least  of  any  can  be  suspected  of 
painting  it  blacker  than  it  is.  At  all  events,  the  conditions  have 
to  carry  part  of  the  blame  for  the  defeats  on  the  Polish  front. 

Hereby  the  honest  intentions  of  the  communists  will  in  no 
manner  be  impugned,  but  we  shall  rather  demonstrate  that  the 
Red  Army  in  itself  is  no  socialist  body,  as  Trotzky  falsely 
designates  it,  but  that  it  is  an  army  like  any  other  army  and 
can  be  nothing  else,  because  it  cannot  disavow  its  character  of 
militarism. 

And  the  population  realizes  that  such  is  the  Red  Army. 
Outwardly,  for  combatting  capitalist  reaction  it  cannot  have 
such  an  effect,  and  as  the  instances  quoted  show  us,  it  has  no 
such  effect.  As  I  learnt  in  the  gouvernement  of  Poltava,  after 
the  Poles  were  driven  out  of  Poltava  and  Kiev,  the  Red  Army 
was  in  the  first  moment  greeted  with  joy.  But  this  joy  did  not 
last  long.  The  peasants  were  oppressed  in  the  extreme  by  the 
Polish  troops.  They  made  a  rebellion  against  them,  and  when  the 
Red  Army  came,  it  was  received  as  a  liberator.  But  as  the 
war  lasted  longer,  the  Soviet  government  was  compelled  to 
take 'the- grain  from:  the  peasants,  in  order  to  be  able  to  feed 
the  army.  Ukraine,  which  they  now  again  held  in  their  hands 
and,  .above "all;-; the  -gouvernement  of  Poltava  which  ranks  among 
the  richest  grain-  countries  of  the  earth,  was  very  welcome  to  the 
exhausted  Soviet  government,  and  it  demanded  the  grain  from  the 
peasants.  For  that  reason  the  peasants  are  now  as  enraged 
against  the  Soviet  government  as  they  formerly  were  against 
the  Poles. 

This  is,  however,  a  phenomenon  incidental  to  the  war,  for 
even  the  guerilla  bands  are  compelled  to  take  the  grain  from  the 
peasants,  when  they  are  driven  into  a  region  which  is  strange 
to  them  and  the  peasants  refuse  them  what  they  need.  True, 
this  occurs  more  seldom  with  the  guerillas,  for  they  are  not 
military  idealists,  they  do  not  wish  to  combat  world  imperialism 
like  the  Red  Army  does  and  are  contented  with  driving  out  those 
who  intrude  into  their  own  territory.  For  this  reason  they  are 
never  entirely  strange  to  the  region  where  they  are  fighting 
and  not  compelled  to  fill  their  needs  by  force  from  the  peasants. 
The  peasants,  who  for  a  large  part  themselves  participate  in 
the  fighting,  give  it  to  them  most  voluntarily.  Such  is  the  case 
with  Machno,  the  Ukrainian  guerilla  leader.  But  outside  the 
Red  Army  there  are  other  military  defense  organizations  of  the 
Russian  workers.  In  Moscow  and  Petrograd  the  workers  are 
subject  to  obligatory  military  exercises  through  their  membership 

102 


in  the  unions,  which  is  also  obligatory.  They  form  a  militia 
which  is  organized  according  to  districts  and  mustered  according 
to  factories.  There  you  find  all  categories  of  workers  and  arti- 
sans, even  married  women  and  girls,  who  work  in  the  factories. 
These  organizations  prove  more  efficient,  and  it  was  also  these 
that  drove  Judenitsch  from  Petrograd.  They  are  not  organizations 
built  according  to  the  pattern  of  the  old  state  armies.  And  if  we 
really  want  to  accomplish  the  abolition  of  the  political  state, 
then  we  must  above  everything  abolish  those  organizations  which 
have  always  been  the  support,  yes,  the  greatest  support  of  the 
state,  namely  the  centralist  armies,  and  replace  them  now,  and 
in  the  so-called  period  of  transition,  with  workers'  defense 
organizations  formed  according  to  districts  or  industries.  Of  the 
two  instruments  of  defense  organized  by  the  communists;  the  Red 
Army  and  the  defense  organization  built  on  the  trade  unions, 
the  latter  are  to  be  preferred,  because  in  them  the  state  principle 
is  already  replaced  by  another  principle.  It  is  the  one  that  most 
indicates  progress,  and  also  comes  nearer  to  the  abolition  of 
militarism.  The  workers  in  the  factories  are  no  professional 
soldiers  and  form  no  standing  army  which  must  "work"  in  order 
to  exist.  Nevertheless,  it  is  still  a  militia  which  also  must  dis- 
appear when  socialism  or  communism  shall  become  a  reality. 
Only  in  the  absence  of  every  kind  of  militarism  is  liberty  for 
the  individual  and  for  the  whole  society  possible. 

Education 

The  revolutionary  people  has  not  been  able  to  accomplish 
much  yet  in  the  field  of  education.  The  economic  and  political 
situation  has  been  too  pressing  and  important  to  give  the  workers 
and  peasants  much  time  to  give  special  attention  to  the  educa- 
tional question.  Furthermore,  education  is  a  thing  which  cannot 
be  greatly  benefited  by  the  collapse  of  the  old  state  and  the 
erection  of  a  new  one.  It  requires  much  slow  detail  work  and 
industrious  and  loving  devotion  in  order  to  create  that  which 
the  people  can  not  obtain  by  sounding  the  tocsin  of  the  revolu- 
tion. Nevertheless,  individuals  as  well  as  the  soviet  government 
have  done  everything  in  their  power  in  order  to  restore  the 
destroyed  school  system  upon  an  altogether  new  foundation. 

At  the  head  of  the  Commissariat  of  Education  is  the  com- 
missar Lunats  char  sky,  an  intellectual  and  tolerant  man.  Ac- 
cording to  what  I  learned  in  an  interview  with  his  nearest  as- 
sistant and  in  conversation  with  himself,  the  apparatus  of  the 
whole  school  system  was  destroyed  during  the  war.  During  the 
Kerensky  period  several  propositions  were  advanced,  but  they 
never  came  to  the  point  of  realization.  When  the  bolsheviks  came 
into  power  they  found  that  the  old  system  was  entirely  unfit  for 
use.  But  the  utmost  difficulties  stood  in  the  road.  Many  old 
teachers  sabotaged  them.  Thus,  70  professors  went  with  Denekin 
in  Odessa,  in  Ural  67  with  Koltschak,  because  they  were  political 

103 


opponents  of  the  bolsheviks.  The  Koltschak  army  did  everything 
in  order  to  hinder  the  enlightenment  of  the  people ;  they  destroyed 
the  schools,  burnt  the  school  books,  and  drove  the  teachers  away. 
During  the  czarist  period  the  kindergartens  were  in  private 
hands.  When  the  bolsheviks  came  into  power  they  nationalized 
these.  A  mother  is  supported  for  three  months  after  child  birth 
by  the  state.  The  child  can  be  sent  to  a  Home  for  Children,  to 
remain  there  up  to  its  third  year.  From  the  third  to  the  seven- 
teenth year  the  children  are  under  the  supervision  of  the  Com- 
missariat of  Education  and  get  their  maintenance  from  the 
schools.  At  present  there  are  about  3,620  children's  homes  after 
the  Froebel  system  for  children  of  3-6  or  7  years.  In  these  in- 
stitutions it  is  principally  war  orphans  that  are  taken  up,  and 
if  there  is  room  to  spare,  proletarian  children,  and,  last  of  all, 
children  of  the  bourgeoisie.  In  Moscow  there  are  about  180  such 
institutes.  In  the  whole  of  Russia  there  are,  so  far,  (1920), 
204,917  children  in  these  institutes. 

In  the  43  gouvernements  which  are  under  consideration  here, 
there  are  7  million  children  of  school  age,  so  that  only  an  insig- 
nificant part  has  so  far  been  taken  charge  of  by  the  school.  Of 
teachers  there  are  11,234.  Among  them  are,  naturally,  all  sorts 
of  teachers.  In  newly  established  seminaries  young  people  of  17 
years  and  up  are  given  instruction  from  6  weeks  up  to  3  years, 
in  order  to  serve  as  teachers. 

For  specially  refractory  children  separate  children's  homes 
have  been  established.  The  children  are  examined  in  regard  to 
their  natural  tendencies,  and  it  is  also  sought  to  ascertain  whethei 
the  child  is  born  with  inherited  criminal  tendencies.  If  it  shows 
signs  of  bad  tendencies  it  is  put  in  a  bureau  of  psychic  observa- 
tion. There  are  also  children  still  in  the  prisons.  But  it 
sought  to  remove  them  from  the  prisons  as  far  as  possible. 
Persons  below  17  years  of  age  are  counted  as  children. 

In  the  public  schools  one  teacher  had  to  instruct  40  childrei 
in  czarist  times,  but  it  is  now  tried  to  reduce  the  number  to  25, 
but  so  far  they  have  not  come  down  any  further  than  32.  The 
school  period  was  formerly  2-4  years,  but  now  it  is  desired 
raise  it  from  4  to  9  years. 

From  8  to  12  years  children  shall  go  to  the  middle  school, 
where  they  are  given  elementary  instruction.  In  regard  to  the 
new  methods  of  teaching  we  were  told  that  in  the  czarist  schools 
the  connection  between  geography  and  mathematics  on  the  on< 
side,  and  history  on  the  other,  was  never  taught.  It  is  now  desired 
to  give  the  children  such  an  education  that  they  will  get  a  general 
view  of  the  economic  structure  of  society  in  the  Marxian  sense. 
It  is  attempted  to  introduce  the  intuitive  method  of  instruction 
on  a  grand  scale.  By  means  of  technical  apparatus,  for  instance, 
a  match  box,  the  children  shall  be  taught  mathematics,  chemistry 
and  physics.  In  the  43  gouvernements  of  Soviet  Russia  there  are 
about  3,600  public  elementary  schools  with  29,000  teachers  and 

104 


470,000  pupils.  But  there  is  a  total  of  6,801,000  children  of 
school  age,  so  that  the  largest  part  of  the  children  do  not  go 
to  school.  This  has  its  cause  in  several  circumstances.  1)  There 
are  not  sufficient  schools.  2)  There  is  not  sufficient  school  equip- 
ment. 3)  Many  parents  purposely  neglect  to  send  their  children 
to  school,  because  many  schools  are  demoralized.  Many  children 
are  speculating,  and  are  then  picked  up  and  sent  to  institutions 
for  the  bringing  up  of  children. 

For  children  who  desire  to  get  a  technical  education  the 
instruction  between  12  and  17  years  is  more  vocational.  Those 
who  are  gifted  and  want  to  train  further  can  go  to  the  university. 
All  instruction  is  free.  The  students  receive,  in  addition  to  food 
rations  and  lodgings,  a  small  contribution  in  money  by  the  state. 

Besides  these  schools  there  are  technical  continuation  schools, 
some  of  them  organized  by  the  Commissariat  of  Education,  and 
some  by  the  unions.  There  are  also  art  industrial  schools  and 
a  "proletkult"  where  young  workers  have  produced  quite  splendid 
work. 

Many  private  villas  and  palaces  were  transformed  into 
Children's  Homes.  Even  in  the  country  I  have  visited  many 
estate  mansions  where  there  are  now  children's  homes.  The 
children  feel  quite  happy  there.  But  there  is  one  short-coming 
that  is  noticeable  about  all  this,  and  that  is  the  lack  of  equipment. 
No  books,  no  lead  pencils,  no  writing  paper.  The  war  and  the 
blockade  are  responsible  for  this.  All  over,  wherever  one  goes 
the  complaint  is  heard  about  the  blockade.  Bolsheviks  and 
mensheviks,  revolutionaries  and  reactionaries,  all  of  them  com- 
plain of  the  blockade  and  wish  it  lifted.  Maybe  there  are  Russian 
counter-revolutionaries  outside  of  Russia  who  desire  a  continua- 
tion of  the  blockade,  in  order  to  combat  the  bolsheviks,  but  in 
Russia  itself  all  are  against  the  blockade  and' long  for  its  discon- 
tinuance with  the  greatest  impatience. 

The  bringing  up  of  man  to  a  free  personality  is  one  of  the 
most  important  tasks  for  a  new  society.  A  growing  person  must 
be  fitted  out  with  the  conquest  of  science  and  technique,  in  order 
that  he  may  be  able  to  build  up  a  new  society.  But  he  must 
also  be  fitted  out  with  the  positive  qualities  of  a  socialist  world 
conception,  he  must  learn  that  the  human  and  socialist  ideal  must 
be  transplanted  into  actual  life  and  that  he  must  realize  that  in 
his  own  person.  Education  is  not  only  a  problem  for  the  young 
but  also  for  the  old. 

According  to  bolshevik  theory,  the  dictatorship  is  the  period 
which  shall  carry  the  working  masses  over  to  socialism  or  com- 
munism. This  shall  be  realized  by  the  fact  that  the  conditions 
of  economic  and  political  life  under  which  people  live  and  which, 
without  doubt,  exert  a  great  influence  on  the  thoughts  and  ac- 
tions of  men — the  Marxians  say  that  this  influence  is  absolute — 
assume  other  forms,  through  which  men  will  then  experience 
a  change  in  their  actions  and  will-expressions,  a  change  for  the 
better. 

105 


The  essential  difference  between  the  capitalist  and  socialist 
order  of  society  consists  in  this  that  in  the  latter  wealth  and 
poverty,  mastery  and  servitude,  shall  be  abolished.  In  practice 
the  abolition  of  wealth  and  poverty  means  that  a  few  people 
shall  not  live  very  well  while  others  are  living  very  poorly.  But 
we  must  say  that  in  Russia  there  are  still  in  existence  great 
differences  in  the  standard  of  living  of  the  people,  and  that 
ruling  over  people  is  by  no  means  abolished.  Judging  from 
everything  one  cannot  say  that  in  Russia  the  economic  and  poli- 
tical conditions,  such  as  they  have  been  in  the  last  three  years, 
have  exerted  a  particularly  favorable  or  a  decisive  influence  on 
the  bringing  up  of  people  to  socialism  and  communism.  It  has 
become  evident  that  a  revolutionary  government,  or  a  prole- 
tarian-communist state,  or  a  state  striving  towards  communism 
cannot  create  the  economic  and  political  life  forms  of  freedom 
and  justice,  if  men  do  not  do  it  themselves,  in  each  community, 
in  each  shop;  that  the  interference  of  the  state,  however  well- 
meant  it  may  be,  must  always  appear  as  forcible  dictation  from 
the  outside,  through  which  men  are  prevented  from  coming 
nearer  their  ideal;  that  each  individual  must  prepare  himself, 
technically  and  culturally,  and  that  this  socialist  training  is 
possible  not  only  later,  when  capitalism  shall  have  been  over- 
thrown, but  right  now  and  today,  just  as  socialist  propaganda 
has  always  been  more  or  less  possible,  whether  openly  or  secretly. 

It  is  my  sincere  wish  that  each  reader  of  this  book  may 
draw  this  lesson  from  it.  If  we  want  to  liberate  the  world  from 
capitalism  and  class  rule  and  state,  then  we  must  remember  that 
this  world  emancipation  is  largely  also  self -emancipation. 


106 


The  Revolution  in  Ukraine 

AT  the  end  of  1919  the  bolsheviks  for  the  third  time  got  a  firm 
footing  in  Ukraine.  Ukraine  was  again  declared  a  Soviet  Re- 
public, and  due  to  the  fact  that  the  Ukrainians  made  a  strong 
demand  for  independence  it  was  affiliated  as  an  independent 
Soviet  Republic  to  the  central  Russian  Soviet  Republic. 

Originally  the  Soviet  Republic  in  Central  Russia  wanted  to 
include  the  lands  of  Ukraine  in  its  own  domain.  But  this  proved 
to  ,be  impossible,  due  to  the  strong  demand  for  independence. 
The  opposition  between  North  Russia  and  South  Russia,  or 
Ukraine,  dates  far  back.  Ukraine  comprises  all  South  Russia. 
Ukraine  has  its  own  culture,  its  own  history,  its  own  language, 
its  own  national  development.  The  Russian  czars  have  always 
striven  to  put  Ukraine,  rich  in  natural  resources  and  the  most 
fertile  country  in  Europe,  under  their  dominion.  In  this  they 
succeeded.  But  the  Ukrainian  population  was  always  rebellious 
against  the  ruling  tendencies  of  Great-Russia.  Great-Russian 
rule  had  for  result  the  hatred  and  the  distrust  of  the  Ukrainian 
peasants  towards  the  Great-Russians.  Therefore  it  was  natural 
that  this  old  antagonism  did  not  disappear  after  the  outbreak 
of  the  revolution;  on  the  contrary,  the  population  took  a  rather 
frigid  stand  towards  the  Central  Russian  Council  or  Soviet  Re- 
public and  demanded  independence;  a  free  republic  independent 
of  the  rest  of  Russia.  This  demand  the  bolsheviks  had  to  comply 
with  if  they  did  not  want  to  live  in  a  permanent  war  with  the 
Ukrainians. 

But  even  this  new  Soviet  Republic  had  not  sprung  from  the 
ranks  of  the  Ukrainians  themselves,  and  it  still  remains  a  foreign 
body  for  the  peasants,  and  that  is  one  of  the  many  reasons  why 
Ukraine  continues  to  be  the  child  of  sorrow  of  the  Russian  Soviet 
Republic,  and  will  long  remain  so.  The  president  of  the  Ukrainian 
Soviet  Republic  is  not  an  Ukrainian  and  is  not  elected  by  the 
Ukrainians.  He  is  a  Roumanian,  and  was  put  in  his  place  by 
Lenin.  His  name  is  Rakovsky. 

The  situation  in  Ukraine  as  a  result  of  the  war  and  the 
revolution  is  so  complicated,  and  will  in  the  next  few  years  be 
so  complicated,  that  it  is  necessary  to  know  the  history  of  the 
development  since  the  outbreak  of  the  war,  in  order  to  understand 
the  revolutionary  situation. 

The  war  of  Russian  czarism  was  not  the  Ukrainian  peasants' 
business.  They  were  against  the  war  not  only  because  they  had 

107 


to  send  their  sons  to  the  war  but  also  because  they  had  to 
supply  the  provisions  for  the  army.  The  dissatisfaction  of  the 
peasants  increased  with  the  duration  of  the  war,  and  when  the 
revolution  broke  out  in  Central  Russia,  Ukraine  was  also  soon 
in  flames.  But  as  the  Ukrainians  were  against  the  Kerensky 
government,  the  bolsheviks  soon  gained  the  upper  hand  and  at 
the  end  of  1917  they  were  in  power  in  Ukraine.  Bui  there,  was 
another  reason  why  the  bolsheviks  found  an  open  ear  with  the 
Ukrainian  peasants.  This  was  the  peace  of  Brest-Litovsk.  The 
peasants  wanted  to  have  peace  at  any  price.  The  bolsheviks  who 
concluded  this  peace  were  preferred  to  all  other  parties  by  the 
Ukrainian  peasants. 

But  through  this  peace  the  Germans  and  the  Austrians  got 
a  free  hand  in  Ukraine.  They  began  their  imperialistic  policy. 
Particularly  Germany,  which  through  the  economic  blockade  of 
the  allies  had  been  precipitated  into  a  "food  crisis,  now  saw  in 
Ukraine  its  savior  in  their  hour  of  need.  Ukraine  is  the  land 
that  flows  with  milk  and  honey.  Europe's  largest  sugar  fac- 
tories and  its  largest  grain  fields  are  in  Ukraine.  These  great 
supplies  German  militarism  felt  compelled  to  acquire  for  its 
armies  which  were  then  fighting  on  the  battlefields  of  Western 
Europe. 

General  Eichhorn  was  sent  to  Ukraine  and  his  armies  oc- 
cupied the  country  in  the  beginning  of  1918.  But  in  order  to 
hide  the  foreign  rule  from  the  people  they  put  in  Skoropadski 
as  hetman  over  the  country.  German  militarism  began  to  func- 
tion. They  proclaimed  that  they  wanted  to  "save  the  land  from 
bolshevism  and  decay."  By  the  entry  of  the  German  and  Aus- 
trian armies  the  bolsheviks  were  crowded  out  of  Ukraine. 

Eichhorn  received  orders  from  the  supreme  military  com- 
mand to  deliver  grain,  sugar,  etc.,  to  Germany.  The  peasants 
also  gave  up  a  good  deal  at  the  start  for  payment,  but  when 
they  could  not  later  buy  anything  for  the  money,  for  lack  of 
industrial  products,  as  the  Germans  had  more  important  things 
to  do  with  their  war  industry  than  to  supply  Ukraine  with  goods, 
they  finally  did  not  want  to  supply  anything.  Then  the  Germans 
began  the  requisition  policy.  The  peasants  still  refused.  They 
were  threatened  with  force,  and  finally  force  was  used. 

Thus  began  the  peasant  insurrections  'against  the  armies  of 
occupation.  Although  all  this  was  officially  done  under  the  name 
of  Skoropadski,  it  was  clear  that  the  Germans  were  the  origin- 
ators. Skoropadski's  power  in  the  Ukraine  rested  on  German 
bayonets  and  machine  guns.  It  was  not  Ukrainian  soldiers  but, 
principally,  German  and  Austrian  soldiers  which  suppressed 
the  peasants.  It  was  these  soldiers  who  executed  the  death  sen- 
tence over  those  peasants  who  offended  against  the  proclamations 
of  the  state  of  war.  Military  law  was  declared  all  over  Ukraine, 
and  shooting  and  hanging  was  the  order  o/  the  day.  The  traveler 
who  visits  Ukraine  today  has  an  opportunity  to  see  many  photo- 
graphs where  peasants  by  the  hundreds  hang  on  the  gallows,  in 

108 


front  of  which  stand  Austrian  officers  or  Ukrainian  and  Russian 
priests.  The  fury  of  the  Central  European  soldiery  was  ,at  its 
height  in  the  summer  of  1918.  But  the  exasperation  and  the 
despair  of  the  peasants  was  also  at  its  height.  During  the  rule 
of  Eichhorn-Skoropadski  a  total  of  about  80,000  workers  and 
peasants  were  killed. 

Now  the  peasants  began  to  rise  against  their  tormentors 
everywhere.  The  party  of  the  left  social-revolutionaries  remained 
true  to  their  old  terrorist  traditions  and  one  of  their  members 
killed  general  Eichhorn. 

The  death  of  Eichhorn  was  a  signal  for  the  peasants.  The 
West-European  soldiers,  brutalized  through  the  war,  had  learnt 
murder  on  a  grand  scale,  and  the  naturally  brutal  peasants, 
without  the  gloss  of  European  culture,  continued  this  handiwork 
in  still  more  barbarous  forms.  They  started  to  arm  themselves. 
Everywhere  bands  and  little  troops  appeared,  in  the  beginning 
primitively  armed  with  pitchforks  and  flails,  they  started  an 
insurrection,  and  killed  the  Austrian  and  German  soldiers  where- 
ever  they  could  get  hold  of  them. 

It  is  easy  to  understand  that  morals  have  suffered  terribly 
through  this.  A  human  life  had  hardly  any  value  any  longer. 
One  no  longer  negotiated  with  one's  enemy,  but  beat  him  to 
death.  The  peasants  finally  succeeded  in  procuring  modern  fire 
arms,  but,  to  begin  with,  in  very  small  quantities.  A  revolutionary 
who  lived  through  this  state  of  affairs  gives  the  following  account 
of  the  terrible  situation,  and  about  the  desperate  courage  of  the 
peasants. 

"The  bolsheviks  in  Moscow  complain  about  the  un- 
communistic  spirit  of  the  Ukrainian  peasants.  They  came 
to  the  conclusion  that  such  an  un-communistic  spirit  existed 
from  the  fact  that  the  peasants  revolt  against  the  Soviet 
republic.  They  call  the  peasants  "kulaks."  Kulak  is  in  Rus- 
sia the  name  for  the  richer  peasants  who  are  against  the 
abolition  of  private  property  and  oppose  the  introduction 
of  communism.  It  is  said  that  the  peasants  band  together 
and  fight  and  kill  communists.  The  people  who  talk  so  have 
not  the  slightest  idea  of  the  events  that  took  place  in  Uk- 
raine, to  which  events  the  present  situation  can  be  traced. 
"When  the  peasants  under  the  leadership  of  the  social- 
revolutionaries,  anarchists,  maximalists,  bolsheviks,  etc., 
fought  against  the  oppression  by  Skoropadski,  the  Germans, 
the  Austrians,  Kaledin,  etc.,  they  were  very  inadequately 
supplied  with  arms.  Thus  for  instance  I  was  in  a  battle,  in 
which  500  peasants  had  only  200  rifles.  For  each  rifle  there 
were  two  cartridges.  The  enemy  was  over  1000  strong. 
The  500  peasants  stood  in  one  troop,  the  200  who  were 
armed  with  rifles  stood  in  the  front  ranks.  The  numerically 
superior  enemy  was  very  well  supplied  with  the  most  modern 
arms.  They  had  machine  guns,  we  had  nothing.  All  knew 
that  the  foremost  ranks  must  fall  first  and  that  the  turn 

109 


thereafter  would  come  to  the  others.  And,  still,  nobody  left 
his  place.  On  the  contrary,  each  man  waited  until  his  front 
man  had  fallen,  in  order  that  he  might  then  take  his  rifle. 

"Such  a  blind  courage  could  spring  only  from  extreme 
despair  and  from  the  most  mortal  hatred,  conjured  up  in 
the  hearts  of  the  peasants  through  the  draconic  measures 
of  a  most  inhuman  reaction. 

"Those  who  lived  through  such  things,  and  who  have  seen 
the  butchering  of  the  peasants  and  their  desperate  struggle, 
only  they  can  understand  the  state  of  the  Ukrainian  peasant's 
soul,  and  shall  find  it  possible  then  to  understand  that  the 
peasants  now  also  combat  the  bolsheviks  and  reject  the 
bolshevik  theories,  which  are  strange  to  the  peasants.  But 
they  will  never  approve  of  the  tactics  of  the  Central  Russian 
bolsheviks  towards  the  Ukrainian  peasants,  which  show  an 
absolute  lack  of  understanding  of  the  life  of  the  peasants; 
a  lack  of  understanding  which  brands  all  the  efforts  of  the 
peasants  as  counter-revolutionary  risings  of  "kulaks"  who 
wish  to  defend  their  private  property." 

Thus  my  informant,  a  Russian  who  before  the  war  had  spent 
five  years  in  America,  ended  his  story.  This  man's  name  is 
Baron.  He  is  at  present  one  of  the  most  active  members  of  the 
anarchist  federation  of  Ukraine,  which  calls  itself  "Nabat." 

These  reports  place  us  to  some  extent  in  a  position  to  under- 
stand the  psychology  of  the  Ukrainian  peasants.  People  who 
have  for  some  time  lived  in  this  atmosphere  feel  as  though  they 
were  transplanted  to  a  different  world  when  they  read  column- 
long  articles  in  humanistic  papers  on  the  theory  of  force  and 
on  the  use  of  force,  and  where  force  is  treated  as  a  problem. 
For  the  people  of  Eastern  Europe,  particularly  of  Ukraine,  force 
is  no  problem,  but  a  fact,  a  matter  of  course,  a  principle  of  life. 
It  may  be  admitted  that  matters  have  reached  this  point  of 
development  only  through  the  war  and  the  revolution,  but  force 
would  never  have  spread  to  such  a  great  extent,  if  it  had  been 
foreign  to  the  life  of  the  people.  Not  only  in  world  wars  and 
civil  wars,  not  only  in  class  struggles,  or  in  periods  of  the  social 
revolution,  but  also  in  common  every-day  life,  hostilities,  yes, 
even  differences  of  opinion  are  settled  by  primitive  people  prin- 
cipally through  resort  to  the  law  of  might.  How  can  one  wonder, 
then,  that  under  such  conditions  as  existed  in  Ukraine,  force 
was  made  the  all-powerful  principle  and  the  deciding  factor, 
which  took  the  place  of  every  kind  of  justice,  agreement  or  nego^- 
tiation. 

Not  only  for  the  non-partisan  peasants,  but  also  for  the 
political  parties  and  organizations,  force  is  the  most  important 
means  in  their  struggle.  Thus  the  anarchists  and  maximalists 
of  Ukraine  are  daily  and  hourly  facing  the  alternative  whether 
to  use  force  or  to  succumb  in  the  struggle  against  counter-revolu- 
tionary generals,  as  well  as  against  the  bolsheviks.  It  has  even 

110 


gone  so  far  that  it  has  been  spoken  of  in  anarchist  circles  to 
conduct  the  struggle  against  the  bolsheviks  by  means  of  terror- 
ism, if  the  persecutions  do  not  cease. 

Machno 

At  the  time  when  the  peasants  in  all  parts  of  Ukraine  rose 
against  Skoropadski,  and  against  the  Germans  and  the  Austrians, 
there  was  one  man  who  particularly  distinguished  himself  among 
the  leaders.  This  man  later  became  famous  and  is  still  a  hard 
nut  to  crack  for  the  bolsheviks,  a  nut  on  which  they  time  and 
again  break  off  their  teeth.  This  man  is  Machno. 

The  reason  why  the  name  Machno  has  acquired  such  an 
importance  in  Ukraine  lies  less  in  the  prominence  of  Machno's 
personality  than  in  the  spirit  of  the  Ukrainian  peasants  which 
is  personified  and  symbolized  in  Machno. 

Platon  Machno  was  born  in  the  village  of  Gulai-Pole  in  the 
gouvernement  Alexandrovs.  As  a  young  man  he  came  into  the 
socialist  movement.  He  was  a  partner  publisher  of  the  paper 
"Euro  Vjestnik."  Not  yet  20  years  old  he  shot  a  "Pristov,"  a 
member  of  the  Russian  czarist  secret  police.  He  was  condemned 
to  death,  pardoned  to  penal  servitude  for  life  and  banished  to 
Siberia.  The  revolution  of  1917  released  him.  He  was  over  ten 
years  in  exile.  Through  the  sufferings  and  hardships  of  prison 
life  he  became  consumptive.  He  is  a  small  man,  suffering  in  the 
highest  degree  and  often  afflicted  by  violent  hemorrhages  which 
overwhelm  him  while  walking  or  speaking.  By  extraction  and 
in  his  habits  of  life  he  is  a  peasant.  He  calls  himself  an  anar- 
chist, but  is  more  of  an  Ukrainian  peasant  than  a  theoretical 
anarchist.  And  it  is  this  that  connects  him  with  the  peasants 
and  makes  him  so  popular  and  loved  among  them. 

But  if  Machno  has  his  Ukrainian  peasant  extraction  in  com- 
mon with  the  peasants,  the  latter  have  anarchism  in  common 
with  Machno.  The  Ukrainian  peasants  are  attached  to  the  Machno 
brand  of  anarchism  with  the  strongest  ties.  Machno  is,  properly 
speaking,  nothing  but  the  theoretical  expression  of  this  peasant 
anarchism.  The  anarchism  of  the  Ukrainian  peasants  is  not 
built  on  the  theories  of  a  Goodwin,  a  Proudhon  or  a  Kropotkin, 
but  the  fact  of  the  matter  is  that  parts  of  the  anarchist  theories 
find  expression  in  the  tendencies  and  manifestations  of  the 
Ukrainian  peasants. 

The  anarchist  theories  contain  negative  and  positive  parts. 
The  negative  parts  are  antimilitarism,  decentralization  and  the 
negation  of  the  state.  The  positive  parts  are  the  connection  of 
the  independent  free  communes  into  federative  units,  federalism, 
respect  for  the  free  personality  in  the  necessary  unification  on 
the  economic  and  political  field. 

The  efforts  of  the  Ukrainian  peasants  are  covered  by  the 
negative  parts  of  anarchism.  The  peasants  do  not  want  to  re- 

111 


cognize  any  government.  Theoretically  expressed  we  could  say 
that  they  deny  the  state.  They  combat  the  functions  of  the 
state:  they  do  not  want  to  become  soldiers,  they  hate  and  abhor 
officialdom  and  bureaucracy,  do  not  want  to  pay  any  taxes,  in 
short,  they  take  a  hostile  stand  towards  all  the  functions  of 
the  state.  They  are  anti-militarists  when  up  against  the  mili- 
tarism of  the  state,  but  they  defend  their  own  freedom  with  all 
means.  But  even  if  the  negative  parts  of  anarchism  are  the  most 
prominent  parts  of  the  anarchism  of  the  Ukrainian  peasant  move- 
ment ,this  movement  is  not  purely  negative  as  a  movement.  The 
peasants  are  not  theoretical  but  rather  sentimental  anarchists. 
They  have  also  showed,  on  different  occasions,  that  they  are 
capable  of  regulating  their  affairs  in  consonance  with  their 
libertarian  tendencies,  and  even  in  the  sense  of  communism. 

If  we  now  ask  ourselves  wherefrom  these  comparatively 
strong  anarchist  tendencies  of  the  Ukrainian  peasantry  come, 
we  can  say  that,  besides  the  natural  desire  for  liberty,  the  con- 
ditions of  the  last  years  of  revolution  and  war  have  exerted  a 
strong  influence.  Who  will  not  be  able  to  understand  that  a 
people  will  hate  all  political  governments  when  in  the  course  of 
six  years  it  has  had  thirteen  different  governments,  ias  the  case  was 
in  some  gouvernements,  such  as  Kievsk,  Poltava  and  Berdiansk. 
But  these  governments  were  all  war  governments  and  must, 
consequently,  show  themselves  from  the  worst  side.  They  re- 
quisitioned grain,  horses,  etc.,  from  the  peasants,  in  short,  the 
peasants  were  for  the  governments  only  the  means  of  carrying 
on  the  war. 

In  regard  to  the  theories  of  anarchism  the  revolutionary 
movement  of  the  peasants  has  only  parts  of  anarchism  in  it.  But 
this  movement  is  not  identical  with  the  anarchist  movement  of 
Ukraine.  Although  the  bolsheviks  label  the  whole  peasant  move- 
ment, (which  under  Machno  causes  them  so  many  difficulties) 
sometimes  as  anarchistic  and  sometimes  as  a  common  bandit 
movement,  the  anarchists  in  no  manner  identify  themselves  with 
the  Machno  peasant  movement.  And  still  a  large  part  of  the 
anarchists  of  Ukraine  join  the  Machno  peasant  movement,  in 
order  to  work  for  their  ideas.  And  while  they,  for  the  reasons 
above  mentioned,  and  because  of  the  related  character  of  this 
movement,  found  a  good  field  for  their  ideas  and  made  great 
progress  in  these  circles,  the  whole  Machno  movement  was  by 
outsiders  designated  as  an  anarchist  movement. 

When  Machno  came  from  the  prison  in  Siberia,  he  first 
stopped  in  Moscow.  The  rumors  of  the  peasant  massacres 
penetrated  to  Moscow  and  he  went  to  Ukraine,  and  to  his  home 
place  Gulai-Pole. 

The  following  description  of  the  development  of  the  Machno 
movement  comes  not  alone  from  his  most  intimate  friends,  his 
aids  and  comrades,  but  also  from  the  bolsheviks,  who  formerly 
served  him  as  soldiers  but  who  later  entered  the  Red  Army  and 
fought  against  Machno. 

112 


Machno  organized  the  peasants  against  the  Germans  and 
against  Skoropadski-Warta.  There  were  in  Gulai-Pole,  a  village 
of  about  30,000  inhabitants,  seven  men  who  were  good  rebels. 
Among  them  were  Machno,  Tschubenko  and  Gribelenko.  They  had 
some  rifles  and  took  in  the  first  day  80  Skoropadski  soldiers  pris- 
oners. Besides  they  took  rifles  and  collected  money  for  a  fighting 
fund,  and  for  the  first  3,000  rubles  they  bought  a  machine  gun. 
some  bombs  and  one  revolver.  Machno  is  a  splendid,  fiery  orator 
and  understood  how  to  inspire  the  peasants  to  fight.  Through  his 
successes  he  became  famous  among  the  peasants  and  was  soon 
known  in  the  whole  gouvernement  and  later  in  all  Ukraine.  From 
all  sides  the  peasants  gathered  round  him  and  wanted  to  serve 
under  his  flag.  His  power  became  stronger  from  day  to  day,  and 
towards  the  end  of  the  year  1918  he  had  an  army  of  50,000  or, 
according  to  some  reports,  70,000  men. 

Towards  all  other  generals  and  adventurers  the  peasants 
stood  skeptical.  But  not  to  Machno.  The  peasants  loved  Machno, 
and  for  him  they  voluntarily  gave  everything  that  the  Germans 
and  Skoropadski  as  well  as  all  other  counter-revolutionary 
generals  could  not  get  from  them.  Thus  Machno  was  able  to 
send  30  wagon  loads  of  foodstuffs  to  Moscow  in  December,  1918. 
The  Moscow  paper  of  the  bolsheviks,  the  "Isvestija"  then  wrote 
very  approvingly  of  Machno.  Machno's  army  at  that  time  held  a 
front  of  over  300  kilometers  (about  186  miles). 

The  Germans  and  the  Austrians,  as  well  as  Skoropadski, 
wdre  thus  driven  from  the  Ukraine  by  the  peasants,  principally 
under  Machno.  It  was,  consequently,  not  the  Red  Army,  which 
came  into  existence  only  later,  but  the  peasants  themselves  who 
cleaned  out  Ukraine.  This  is  a  historic  fact  of  great  importance. 
It  shows  us  that  well  organized  and  great  modern  armies  were 
conquered  by  peasants  and  peasant  generals  who  had  no  mili- 
tary training  whatsoever.  Here  we  see  repeated  what  we  be- 
fore have  seen  in  history;  the  French  peasants,  after  the  revolu- 
tion of  1789,  threw  back  the  invasion  of  the  Prussians  and  the 
Austrians.  In  Russia  we  have  still  more  instances  of  this  pheno- 
menon. Such  historic  experiences  from  the  French,  Mexican, 
Russian  and  Ukrainian  revolutions  compress  themselves  into  a 
lesson  which  can  be  of  great  use  to  us  for  the  future. 

But  the  counter-revolution  was  not  settled  through  the  ex- 
pulsion of  the  Germans,  Austrians  and  the  Skoropadskis  from,  the 
Ukraine,  Not  for  a  moment.  France  and  England  as  well  as 
Roumania,  who  thereby  got  the  danger  of  revolution  directly  in 
their  neck,  were  not  at  all  suited  by  the  fact  that  in  Ukraine, 
it  was  the  peasants,  the  anarchists  and  bolsheviks  who  ruled. 
The  aim  of  the  entente  was,  and  is  up  to  the  present  time,  to 
break  down  Soviet  Russia  and  Soviet  Ukraine.  They  provoked 
and  supported  counter-revolution.  They  financed  the  old  czarist 
generals  Petljura,  Kaledin,  Grigorjev,  Denekin,  and  Wrangel  and 
encouraged  them  to  reactionary  advances.  As  Germany  was  van- 
quished, the  conquerors  of  Germany  took  over  the  role  of  watch- 

113 


dogs  for  the  reaction,  formerly  played  by  Germany  in  Europe. 
Germany  throttled  with  iron  fist  the  revolution  in  Finland  through 
general  Goltz.  The  entente  tried  to  do  the  same  in  the  Ukraine 
through  the  old  czarist  officers. 

From  Podolia  and  from  the  East  Galician  frontier  came 
Petljura,  from  the  region  of  Don  came  Kaledin,  and  later  Denekin 
took  possession  of  the  Don  basin.  Besides,  a  former  czarist 
general,  Grigorjev,  gathered  dissatisfied  peasants  around  him, 
and  he  succeeded  in  drawing  to  himself  great  numbers  under 
pretense  that  he  brought  the  peasants  freedom. 

The  bolsheviks  in  Moscow  saw  the  danger  which  threatened 
them  from  Ukraine.  It  was  clear  that  the  counter-revolution 
which  raised  its  head  in  such  manifold  shapes,  would  not  con- 
tent itself  with  Ukraine  but  would  extend  further  into  Central 
Russia.  In  fact,  Denekin  later  came  far  outside  of  Ukraine.  He 
occupied  Orel  and  stood  before  Tula,  the  last  strategically  im- 
portant point  before  Moscow.  But  now  the  aim  of  the  Soviet 
government  was  to  overthrow  all  other  powers  in  Central  Rus- 
sia and  establish  one  single  soviet  power  of  the  Communist  Party. 
The  peasant  movement  under  Machno  stood  in  the  road  of  this 
policy.  Economically  they  were  dependent  upon  Ukraine.  Cen- 
tral and  North  Russia  needed  Ukraine's  grain  and  sugar.  Cen- 
tral and  North  Russia  is  higher  developed  industrially  than  Uk- 
raine, but  through  the  war  and  the  revolution  it  was  so  im- 
poverished that  they  were  not  capable  of  entering  into  purely 
economic  exchange  with  an  independent  Ukraine  but  had  to 
amalgamate  politically  with  that  country.  Besides,  it  would  not  do 
to  allow  Machno  to  become  too  strong,  for  just  as  well  as 
Denekin  the  Machno  movement  could  crowd  over  into  Central 
Russia,  and  that  had  to  be  prevented.  The  position  of  the  bol- 
sheviks regarding  the  situation  in  the  Ukraine  was  also  very 
vacillating.  The  reaction  had  to  be  beaten  down.  This  could 
not  be  done  without  the  Ukrainian  peasants  and  workers.  But 
these  stood  suspicious  towards  the  bolsheviks,  although  they  went 
together  with  them  in  breaking  down  reaction.  The  bolsheviks 
needed  the  peasants  but  sought  to  become  masters  of  their 
separatist  libertarian  movement.  Denekin  they  could  openly  com- 
bat with  the  Red  Army.  He  was  a  reactionary  and  the  peasants 
and  the  workers  were  also  against  him.  But  the  Red  Army  was 
not  strong  enough  to  quash  Denekin.  For  that  purpose  they 
needed  the  peasants  and  Machno.  At  the  outset,  about  the  end 
of  1918  and  the  early  part  of  1919,  the  reactionary  wave  of  the 
czarist  generals  was  not  yet  so  dangerous  and  not  so  powerful. 
The  power  of  the  peasants  was  stronger.  But  it  was  not  pos- 
sible to  fight  them  openly  without  coming  to  a  complete  rupture 
with  them,  for  they  needed  the  peasants  badly,  in  the  first 
place  for  providing  food  stuffs,  and  in  the  second  place  to  help 
the  Red  Army  against  the  counter-revolution. 

The  bolshevik  plans  were  that  the  peasant  army  of  50,000 
to  70,000  men  should  be  kept  in  Ukraine  and,  as  far  as  possible, 

114 


held  in  inactivity.  This  could  be  accomplished  quite  painlessly. 
The  lack  of  arms  and  ammunition,  which  already  in  the  begin- 
ning of  the  risings  developed  such  tragic  effects,  made  itself 
again  noticeable.  That  was  one  of  the  weakest  points  of  the 
peasant  army.  This  the  bolsheviks  knew.  Machno  asked  the 
Soviet  government  for  arms  and  ammunition.  He  turned  to 
Debenko,  the  highest  commander  of  the  Red  Army  of  Crimea. 
Debenko  delayed  the  munitions  shipment  and  gave  him  first  in 
February,  1919,  a  single  wagon  load  of  cartridges. 

In  order  to  discuss  the  situation  Machno  called  a  conference 
of  the  peasants,  which  took  place  in  Machno's  birthplace,  Gulai- 
Pole.  This  was  a  conference  of  revolting  peasants.  They  are  in 
Ukraine  called  "Povstanzi."  These  povstanzi  are  guerilla  soldiers, 
rebellious  peasants  who  fight  in  armed  groups.  The  anarchists, 
left  social-revolutionaries  and  maximalists,  in  a  resolution  con- 
demned the  conduct  of  the  bolsheviks.  But  the  peasants  still  had 
confidence  in  the  bolsheviks  and  demanded  the  striking  out  of 
those  paragraphs  of  the  resolution  which  were  directed  against 
them.  Still,  the  situation  did  not  improve.  The  munition  ship- 
ments became  smaller  and  smaller.  The  leaders  of  the  Machno 
army  called  a  second  conference  in  Gulai-Pole  about  the  end  of 
March.  This  conference  was  dissolved  by  the  bolsheviks. 

The  bolsheviks  now  sent  the  anarchist  Roschtschin-Grossman, 
professor  of  philology  and  philosophy  at  the  Moscow  University, 
to  Machno,  in  order  to  prevail  upon  him  to  join  with  the  Red 
Army.  Machno  was  to  remain  supreme  commander  of  his  army 
but  place  his  force  under  the  supreme  commander  of  the  Red 
Army,  Trotzky.  Machno,  who  was  embittered  by  the  conduct  of 
the  bolsheviks  refused  this  on  the  ground  that  he  did  not  want 
to  work  under  those  whose  desire  was  to  conquer  power.  And 
no  change  could  be  made  in  this  position  of  his  by  the  bolsheviks 
sending  him  a  wagon  load  of  paper. 

From  that  moment  began  the  war  between  the  bolsheviks 
and  the  Machno  warriors.  That  it  had  to  come  to  an  open  break 
between  these  two  powers,  lay  in  the  very  nature  of  these  two 
armies.  Here  were  two  hostile  principles  which  stood  against 
one  another.  The  principle  of  an  army  which  was  formed  through 
compulsory  mobilization  and  naturally  stood  on  centralistic 
ground,  and  on  the  other  side  peasants  who'  had  sprung  together 
voluntarily,  guerilla  bands  which  were  held  together  only  for 
the  moment  through  the  hour  of  danger  and  through  common 
suffering.  With  the  former,  iron  discipline  was  a  matter  of  fact; 
with  the  latter  enforced  discipline  was  a  matter  of  taste.  Machno, 
as  the  leader  of  the  rebellious  peasants,  could  never  submit  to 
the  superior  command  of  a  high  army  commander.  Even  if  he 
had  personally  desired  to  do  so,  the  very  nature  of  the  army  he 
commanded  would  not  have  permitted  it.  To  demand  this  bears 
witness  of  complete  ignorance  of  the  essential  difference  between 
these  two  bodies.  The  Red  Army  is  militarism;  the  Machno  army 
consisted  of  rebellious  peasants,  militants,  but  not  military. 

115 


It  is,  therefore,  absolutely  false  and  unjust  to  brand  Machno  as 
a  bandit  and  a  traitor,  as  the  bolsheviks  did.  Only  the  defenders 
of  Roman  law  can  designate  rebellious  peasants  as  bandits,  but 
the  bolsheviks  who  themselves  are  revolutionaries  have  no  right 
to  do  so. 

Not  only  in  principle,  but  also  as  a  matter  of  tactics,  was 
it  impossible  for  the  Machno  army  to  co-operate  with  the  Red 
Army,  at  least  for  any  length  of  time.  The  Machno  army  which 
consists  of  revolting  peasants,  is  no  army  in  the  military  sense 
of  the  word.  When  the  work  in  the  fields  begins,  then  the 
peasants  go  to  tend  to  that  work,  and  when  the  harvest  begins 
they  go  out  harvesting.  Machno's  army  is,  thus,  anything  but 
stable,  and  its  strength  varies  extremely,  according  to  circum- 
stances and  seasons.  Also  the  mode  of  fighting  used  by  this  army 
is  fundamentally  different  from  the  methods  used  by  the  Red 
Army,  drilled  around  the  barracks.  The  rebellious  peasants 
principally  carried  on  a  guerilla  warfare.  However  successful 
a  guerilla  war  may  be,  still  it  can  never  be  the  tactics  used  by 
a  centralistically  organized,  militaristic  national  army.  It  is  and 
remains  the  tactics  of  insurgents  in  a  revolution,  no  more  and 
no  less. 

Although  the  Red  Army  of  Trotzky  and  the  peasant  army 
of  Machno,  due  to  their  nature,  stood  completely  strange  to  one 
another,  still  they  struggled  on  a  common  platform  and,  for  the 
time  being  had  a  common  aim.  It  was  therefore  clear  that 
Trotzky  should  want  to  make  use  of  this  considerable  power  of 
the  peasants.  But  the  impossibility  of  getting  rid  of  Denekin 
without  Machno  made  Trotzky  blind  to  the  unbridgeable  cleft 
which  existed  between  him  and  Machno. 

Trotzky  was  really  in  an  extremely  difficult  situation.  The 
Red  Army  stood  in  the  North,  Denekin  in  the  South,  and  Machno 
with  his  army  was  in  the  middle  between  the  two.  Trotzky  was 
compelled  to  force  Machno  to  recognize  his  superior  command, 
in  order  to  be  able  to  conduct  uniform  operations,  that  could 
have  given  the  victory  to  the  Red  Army,  which  was  not  any  too 
strong.  This  could  be  done  only  with  the  aid  of  Machno.  But 
from  the  above  mentioned  causes  of  fundamental  nature  it  was 
impossible  for  Machno  to  recognize  Trotzky's  supremacy.  And 
Machno  himself  was  in  a  very  critical  situation,  between  two 
fires.  Munitions  he  had  none.  Trotzky  wanted  to  give  him 
munitions  only  if  he  completely  accepted  all  the  conditions  of 
the  Red  Army.  This  was  impossible  for  Machno.  Then  Trotzky 
conceived  the  idea  of  annihilating  Machno. 

Machno  needed  5  million  cartridges.  He  had  then  about 
50,000  men.  According  to  Riefkin,  the  leader  of  the  maximalists, 
even  70,000  men.  They  sent  him  only  half  a  million  cartridges,  and 
instead  of  5,000  rifles,  only  300.  They  prolonged  the  negotiations, 
in  order  to  gain  time,  and  thereby  3  to  4  days  were  lost.  In 
the  meantime  Denekin  kept  advancing.  Machno  had  no  muni- 
tions and  had  to  retreat  under  terrible  losses.  Through  the  pres- 

116 


sure  the  Red  Army  also  was  compelled  to  draw  back.  Machno's 
war  committee  wished  to  call  a  peasant  conference,  in  order 
that  they  might  take  counsel  in  the  situation.  Even  the  second 
conference  in  Gulai-Pole  was  dissolved  by  the  bolsheviks.  One 
must  not  think  that  there  were  unified,  distinctly  marked  fronts, 
but  one  front  ran  into  the  other.  Thus  it  came  that  a  part  of 
the  riding  messengers,  who  were  to  announce  the  conference  to 
the  peasants  in  the  villages,  were  picked  up  and  arrested  in  the 
region  where  the  Red  Army  had  a  firm  footing.  The  conference 
thus  came  to  naught,  and  seven  of  these  messengers  were  shot 
in  Charkov  as  members  of  the  revolutionary  war  committee. 

Trotzky  was  in  Charkov  and  spoke  on  April  29,  1919  in  a 
meeting  against  Machno.  He  called  Machno  a  bandit  and  a 
robber  and  said  that  it  would  be  better  if  the  white  guards  took 
possession  of  Ukraine  than  to  have  it  in  the  hands  of  Machno. 
For  when  the  whites  have  come  back,  the  peasants  will  call  the 
bolsheviks  back.  But  if  Machno  remains  in  power,  then  the 
middle  peasants  will  retain  the  upper  hand. 

On  the  ground  of  these  theories  the  bolsheviks  decided  to 
open  the  front  at  Josufka.  At  this  place  the  Red  Army  was 
directly  facing  Denekin.  The  result  was  that  Denekin's  armies 
attacked  Machno'  in  the  back.  Machno,  without  munitions,  at- 
tacked in  the  front  as  well  as  from  the  rear,  had  to  retreat,  but 
was  completely  defeated  and  lost  the  largest  part  of  his  army. 
With  a  few  thousand  men  he  succeeded  in  saving  himself  by 
fleeing.  He  retreated  to  the  Dnieper  region  in  the  Southwest. 

But  on  this  account  the  Red  Army  was  also  forced  to  retreat, 
and  Denekin  advanced  still  further.  He  took  Charkov,  penetrated 
into  Central  Russia,  took  Kursk  and  Orel,  and  even  got  as  far  as 
Tula. 

The  bolsheviks  said  that  Machno  had  committed  treason  and 
they  declared  him  outlawed.  He  was  placed  outside  the  law.  His 
brother  was  discovered  in  a  hospital,  was  taken  for  Machno  and 
murdered.  Machno',  who  was  accused  of  treason  against  the 
Red  Army,  should  have  thus  acted  to  the  advantage  of  Denekin! 

These  were  the  hardest  days,  not  so  much  for  Machno  as 
for  the  Red  Army.  The  peasants  again  gathered  around  him. 
Gulai-Pole  and  the  capitals  Jekaterinoslav,  Mariopol  and  Poltava 
fell  into  Machno's  hands. 

This  was  in  the  late  summer  and  the  fall  of  1919.  Machno 
became  a  danger  to  Denekin.  Denekin's  main  army  stood  already 
in  Russia;  his  rear  guard  was  still  in  Ukraine.  Machno  cut  the 
rear  guard  off  from  the  main  army  and  bound  Denekin's  trans- 
ports of  munitions  and  provisions  up  tightly  in  the  South. 
Denekin  was  thus  forced  to  retreat  and  the  Red  Army  took  to 
the  offensive.  Most  experts  and  participants  in  these  struggles 
were  of  the  firm  conviction  that  Denekin  then  would  have  come 
to  Moscow  had  Machno  not  frustrated  his  plans. 

Through  this  decisive  blow  in  a  critical  situation  Machno 

117 


again  found  favor  with  the  bolsheviks.  The  sentence  hanging  over 
his  head  was  revoked,  and  he  was  no  longer  labeled  a  ''counter- 
revolutionary." 

While  the  Red  Army  was  pressed  back  by  Denekin's  vic- 
torious army,  a  new,  reactionary  czarist  general  made  his  ap- 
pearance in  Ukraine:  Grigorjev.  He  fought  against  the  bolshe- 
viks and  promised  the  peasants  freedom  and  the  soviet  system, 
and  he  succeeded  in  gathering  quite  a  large  following. 

Machno  desired  to  know  whose  spiritual  child  Grigorjev  was. 
He  began  negotiating  with  him.  At  one  of  these  negotiations 
Machno  killed  him  after  he  had  learnt  that  Grigorjev  was  a 
reactionary.  This  also  was  counted  in  his  favor  by  the  bolsheviks. 

Between  October  30  and  November  1,  1919,  Jekaterinoslav 
fell  from  Denekin's  into  Machno's  hands.  As  Denekin's  main 
army,  on  account  of  Machno's  exploits,  was  then  compelled  to 
retreat,  it  came  from  Central  Russia  down  into  Ukraine.  What 
formerly  had  happened  to  Machno,  now  happened  to  Denekin: 
he  had  no  ammunition.  Machno  held  Jekaterinoslav  for  a  month. 
During  this  whole  month,  parts  of  the  Denekin  army  stood  only 
10  versts  from  Jekaterinoslav  on  the  other  side  of  the  Dnieper. 
Machno  could  not  get  over,  but  neither  could  Denekin.  He 
bombarded  the  city  but  could  not  take  it.  Both  of  them,  Machno 
and  Denekin,  bombarded  the  bridge  across  Dnieper,  in  order  to 
prevent  the  other  from  coming  over.  In  December  Denekin's 
North  army,  driven  back  by  the  Red  Army,  advanced  upon 
Jekaterinoslav  from  the  North  side. 

Machno  was  thus  forced  to  turn  back  and  retreat  to  Alex- 
androvsk.  In  the  meantime  Denekin  retreated  still  further,  and 
the  Red  Army  followed  upon  his  heels.  On  January  10  and  11 
the  Red  Army  also  arrived  at  Alexandrovsk.  Trotzky  now 
demanded  that  the  peasants  under  Machno  disarm.  This  they 
refused  to  do.  It  came  again  to  conflicts,  and  Machno  was  once 
more  outlawed.  Part  of  his  people  were  disarmed.  He  himself 
drew  back  his  troops  in  the  night  and  fled.  From  that  time  his 
power  weakened.  At  the  time  the  agricultural  work  had  to  be 
performed,  in  the  spring  and  the  summer  of  1920,  he  did  not 
have  more  than  a  few  thousand  men.  The  bolsheviks  became 
more  powerful  in  Ukraine  and  pursued  him.  He  retreated  to 
the  woods  and  kept  himself  between  Poltava,  Berdiansk  and 
Alexandrovsk. 

The  entente,  particularly  France,  saw  itself  deceived  in  the 
hopes  it  had  placed  on  the  Denekin  undertaking.  But  France 
did  not  yet  surrender  its  hopes  of  \making  Ukraine  the  starting 
point  for  its  attack  upon  the  bolsheviks.  It  looked  around 
for  other  hirelings  and  found  one  in  Baron  Wrangel,  "the  white 
baron,"  as  he  is  called  in  Ukraine  and  in  Russia. 

Through  French  support  Wrangel  became  stronger.  Espe- 
cially after  the  war  that  broke  out  between  Russia  and  Poland, 
Russia  was  compelled  to  concentrate  its  power  against  Poland 
and  could  not  occupy  itself  very  much  with  Ukraine.  The  defeats 

118 


of  the  Red  Army  on  the  Polish  front  weakened  the  position  of 
the  bolsheviks  in  the  Ukraine  also.  About  the  end  of  September 
the  danger  of  the  advance  of  the  Polish  army  was  so  great  that 
the  bolsheviks  again  evacuated  Kiev.  Wrangel  threatened  the 
Don  basin.  Ukraine  was  not  unlike  a  boiling  kettle.  Everywhere 
the  peasants  congregated  and  formed  bands.  These  bands  fought 
against  the  Poles,  against  the  bolsheviks,  and  also  againstt 
Wrangel.  Machno  also  became  stronger  again.  As  a  few  months 
before,  the  bolsheviks  had  liberated  West  Ukraine  from  the  Poles, 
who  had  taken  Kiev  and  penetrated  into  the  gouvernement  of 
Poltava,  the  peasants  looked  upon  the  bolsheviks  as  their  liberat- 
ors. To  begin  with,  they  got  along  quite  well  with  the  Soviet 
government.  But  as  the  bolsheviks  later,  through  the  protraction 
of  the  war,  were  forced  to  requisition  provisions  for  the  Red 
Army  which  fought  against  Poland,  the  harmony  came  to  an  end. 
The  peasants  began  to  fight  also  against  the  bolsheviks,  as  before 
against  the  Poles.  They  became  dissatisfied  and  rebelled,  and, 
naturally,  Machno  was  again  their  man. 

Machno  operated  once  more  against  Wrangel.  But  the  bol- 
sheviks wrote  that  he  co-operated  with  Wrangel.  The  fact  was 
that  the  peasants  fought  against  both  Wrangel  and  the  bolsheviks. 
The  bolsheviks,  in  their  turn,  fought  against  Wrangel  and  Machno, 
but  did  not  meet  with  any  success.  The  peasants,  including  those 
who  fought  under  Machno' s  banner,  fought  against  all  foreign 
troops  that  entered  their  territory.  It  was  immaterial  to  them 
whether  it  was  the  Poles,  Wrangel  or  bolsheviks.  If  they  only 
succeeded  in  driving  away  the  enemy  they  were  satisfied.  They 
were  not  strategists  sufficiently  to  take  advantage  of  their  suc- 
cesses. They  did  not  pursue  the  beaten  foe.  They  were  satisfied 
when  he  had  left  their  territory.  In  this  respect  the  peasants  are 
no  imperialists,  who  wish  to  conquer  other  domains,  but  neither 
are  they  idealists  who,  for  higher  purposes  or  for  the  sake  of  an 
ideal,  pursue  the  counter-revolution.  In  their  innermost  soul  they 
are  conservative  and  do  not  want  to  be  annoyed  or  disturbed 
from  the  outside.  But  if  this  happens,  then  they  rise  and  start 
a  rebellion,  slay  their  oppressor,  and  return  to<  their  work  in  the 
fields.  That  is  all. 

About  this  time  Machno  sent  a  note  to  the  President  of  the 
Soviet  Republic  of  the  Ukraine  in  which  he  laid  claim  to  the 
gouvernements  of  Jekaterinoslav  and  Cherson  for  himself  and 
his  followers,  in  order  that  the  peasants  might  organize  then> 
selves  as  they  desired.  Besides  he  demanded  the  release  of  his 
friends  from  prison.  To  this  note  Rakovsky  did  not  give  any 
answer.  But  the  bolsheviks  spread  the  information:  Machno 
works  together  with  Wrangel. 

About  the  end  of  September,  1920,  Machno's  forces  became 
considerably  stronger.  At  this  time  the  position  of  the  bolsheviks 
on  the  political  front  was  most  critical.  Machno  succeeded  in 
carrying  out  some  favorable  operations  against  Wrangel.  He  took 
possession  of  Gulai-Pole,  his  native  city,  and  soon  also  occupied 

119 


Mariopol  and  Alexandroysk.  The  Soviet  government,  which  only 
shortly  before  wrote  in  its  papers  that  Machno  co-operated  with 
Wrangel,  was  compelled  to  report  that  Machno  "now"  again 
was  operating  against  Wrangel.  Machno  again  sent  a  note  to 
the  Soviet  government,  in  which  he  once  more  demanded  the 
freedom  of  Wollin  and  the  rest  of  his  friends.  As  Machno  this 
time  had  power  behind  his  words,  the  bolsheviks  were  compelled 
to  give  in.  On  Friday,  October  1,  1920,  Machno's  friends,  the 
theoretical  anarchist  W.  M.  Eichenbaum  (Wollin),  and  Machno's 
aids,  Tschubenko  and  Gabrilenko,  were  released  from  prison, 
where  they  had  up  to  that  time  been  held  as  hostages  for  Machno. 
Both  the  first  mentioned  were  in  the  Butirky  prison  in  Moscow, 
the  latter  in  the  prison  of  Charkov.  At  the  same  time  Machno, 
who  had  been  outlawed  since  January  13,  1920,  was  pardoned. 
But  on  October  2  and  3,  1920,  there  appeared  in  the  Moscow 
"Isyestija"  a  report  that  the  Red  Army  was  making  progress 
against  Wrangel.  From  Mariopol  and  Alexandrovsk,  Wrangel  had 
been  driven  away.  Further  it  also  said  that  Machno  again  had 
united  with  the  Red  Army.  Those  on  the  inside  had  to  laugh 
over  this  ridiculous  and  absolutely  unnecessary  disfigurement  of 
the  truth.  The  truth  was,  as  appears  from  the  "Isvestija"  itself, 
that  it  was  Machno  who  defeated  Wrangel!  But  we  must  admit 
that,  as  Machno,  after  his  demands  had  been  conceded  to,  declared 
himself  prepared  to  fight  with  the  Red  Army  against  Wrangel, 
they  had  some  reason  for  declaring  Machno  as  part  of  the 
operating  Red  Army,  and  so  they  did,  through  their  announce- 
ment that  "the  Red  Army  had  taken  Mariopol,  Gulai-Pole  and 
Alexandrovsk." ! ! 

In  the  middle  of  November,  1920,  Wrangel  was  almost 
completely  beaten.  It  could  be  foreseen  that  the  Red  Army,  which 
through  the  peace  with  Poland  in  Riga,  had  become  free,  would 
throw  itself  upon  Wrangel  and  crush  him.  But  the  beginning  of 
the  end  for  Wrangel  should  be  credited  to  Machno. 

In  consideration  of  this  state  of  affairs  it  was  a  signal  lack 
of  good  taste  for  the  bolshevik  papers,  who  should  not  have 
fought  against  other  revolutionaries,  that  they,  nevertheless,  did 
that.  How  wrong  they  had  been,  they  themselves  saw  some  time 
later.  Thus  one  of  their  papers  which  is  published  in  English 
at  Moscow  ("Russian  Press  Review,"  edition  of  October  29,  1920) 
says,  in  an  article  under  the  heading  "Machno  and  Wrangel," 
as  follows: 

"The  War  Commissariat  has  published  the  following 
correction:  The  French  press  has,  as  is  probably  known, 
written  a  good  deal  about  Machno  joining  Wrangel.  The 
Soviet  press,  in  its  turn,  has  also  published  documents  which 
have  shown  that  a  formal  alliance  existed  between  Wrangel 
and  Machno.  But  it  has  now  been  ascertained  that  this 
information  was  not  correct.  Without  doubt,  Machno  has 
de  facto  helped  Wrangel  as  well  as  the  Polish  army,  by 
fighting  against  the  Red  Army.  But  a  formal  alliance  has  not 

120 


existed  between  them.  All  documents  published  about  a 
formal  alliance  between  Machno  and  Wrangel  were  forged 
by  Wrangel.  A  bandit  chief  from  the  Crimea,  who  called 
himself  chief  Voldin,  who  was  under  the  command  of 
Machno,  received  his  instructions  from  the  Wrangel  staff. 
But  in  reality  there  was  no  connection  between  them.  The 
whole  forgery  was  undertaken  by  Wrangel,  in  order  to 
deceive  the  French  and  other  imperialists. 

"For  some  weeks  Wrangel  was  really  trying  to  get  into 
contact  with  the  Machno  forces  and  sent  two  delegates  to 
Machno's  headquarters,  in  order  to  begin  negotiations.  But 
the  Machno'  troops  showed  that  they  did  not  want  to  have 
anything  to  do  with  Wrangel,  that  they  saw  their  error  in 
fighting  against  the  Soviet  army  by  the  fact  that  Wrangel 
wanted  to  get  in  contact  with  them.  And  united  with  the 
Soviet  army  of  the  South  and  jointly  fought  against  Wrangel. 
Soon  thereafter  they  proposed  to  the  commander  of  the  army 
of  the  South  to  undertake  common  action  against  Wrangel. 
This  proposition  was  accepted  under  certain  conditions.  At 
the  present  time  Machno  is  carrying  on  his  operations  of  war 
under  the  direct  supervision  and  orders  of  the  commander  of 
the  army  of  the  South,  Comrade  Frunze." 

This  document  shows  conclusively  that  all  reports,  stating 
that  Machno  fought  on  the  side  of  Wrangel,  were  false.  The 
bolsheviks  excuse  themselves  by  saying  that  they  learnt  only  later 
that  these  documents  were  forged.  In  the  first  place  it  is  quite 
peculiar  that  they  had  not  found  out  sooner,  as  they  otherwise 
do  not  put  any  faith  in  the  capitalist  press,  but  on  the  contrary 
always  emphasize  their  lying  tendencies.  Second,  one  would  think 
that  the  bolsheviks  would  not  first  go  to  foreign  countries  like 
France,  to>  get  the  news  of  what  takes  place  in  their  own  land. 
Because  the  French  press  wrote  so  and  so  (the  French  knew, 
consequently,  better  what  took  place  in  Russia)  the  bolshevik 
press  took  it  up  as  the  truth.  But  as  the  bolsheviks  are  not  as 
naive  as  all  that,  there  is  good  cause  for  asserting  that  it  was 
not  lack  of  correct  information  but  evil  intention  that  put  the 
pen  in  the  hand  of  their  paper  and  their  high  command,  when 
they  spoke  of  co-operation  between  Machno  and  Wrangel. 

In  regard  to  the  other  statement,  which  is  to  be  found  in  the 
article  quoted  above,  that  the  Machno  forces  de  facto,  (that  is, 
indirectly)  had  helped  Wrangel  when  they  fought  against  the 
Red  Army,  we  have  also  to  do  with  a  conscious  distortion  of  the 
facts,  a  conscious  lie,  for  it  was  not  the  peasants  under  Machno 
which  fought  against  the  revolution.  It  was  these  peasants  ivho 
made  the  revolution.  It  was  when  the  centralistic  Red  Army 
wanted  to  rob  the  peasants  of  their  freedom  that  the  peasants 
rose  against  this  new  rulership  also.  Thus,  it  was  not  Machno 
who  fought  against  the  Red  Army  but  it  was  the  Red  Army 
who  wanted  to  strike  down  the  peasants  under  Machno  who  were 
insurgents.  When  the  peasants  then  defended  themselves  by 

121 


fighting  against  the  Red  Army,  it  naturally  appeared  to  the 
uninitiated  as  if  the  peasants  under  Machno  fought  against  the 
Red  Army. 

Although  we  today  stand  in  the  midst  of  the  struggle  and 
dispassionate  objectivity  does  not  yet  prevail,  still,  the  writer 
of  the  history  of  the  revolution  in  Ukraine  will  be  able  to  sum  up 
these  battles  of  the  peasants  and  the  Red  Army  from  the  fol- 
lowing points  of  view:  The  Red  Army  battled  against  the  capi- 
talist world  imperialism  of  the  entente  and  against  all  the  Rus- 
sian czarist  generals  sent  forth  by  this  imperialism,  as  well  as 
against  the  smaller  states,  like  Poland,  Roumania,  etc.,  which 
were  economically  and  politically  dependent  upon  the  entente. 
But  the  Ukrainian  peasants  fought  against  all,  and  even  against 
the  Russian  Soviet  Republic.  The  word  "imperialism"  coupled 
to  the  word  "red"  has,  of  course,  only  a  symbolic  meaning. 

It  further  says  in  this  article  that  the  Machno  troops  have 
united  with  the  Red  Army.  This  only  means  that  the  peasants 
prefer  the  Red  Army  to  the  Wrangel  army,  not,  however,  that 
they  consider  the  Red  Army  the  savior  of  liberty,  for  they  will 
also  fight  the  Red  Army  if  it  tries  to  circumscribe  their  liberty. 
As  long  as  the  Soviet  government  of  the  bolsheviks  does  not 
annoy  them,  they  take  no  exception  to  it.  But  if  it  demands 
their  subjection,  then  they  fight  against  it. 

It  is  quite  sure,  however,  that  the  bolsheviks,  who  now  co- 
operate with  Machno,  will  fight  him  again  at  their  first  oppor- 
tunity and  then,  perhaps,  will  annihilate  him.  But  with  Machno's 
person  they  have  not  killed  the  rebellious  spirit  of  the  peasants. 
Of  course,  it  might  happen  that  a  general  exhaustion  of  the 
peasants,  a  relaxing  of  the  revolutionary  tension  sets  in,  and 
that  then  the  peasant  movement  comes  to  an  end.  Therefore  later 
historians  of  the  revolution  could,  chronologically,  connect  these 
things,  but  between  Machno's  person  and  his  eventual  separation 
from  the  movement,  and  the  revolutionary  movement  of  the 
peasants  on  the  other  side,  there  is  no  causal  connection. 

In  Russia  there  are  strong  differences  of  opinion  in  regard 
to  the  character  of  the  Machno  movement.  The  Russians  and 
the  Russian  revolutionaries  do  not  allow  themselves  to  be  guided 
by  the  facts  in  passing  judgment  on  this  movement.  Apprecia- 
tions of  this  movement  are  almost  altogether  colored  by  pre- 
conceived theoretical  views  and  opinions.  Thus,  the  bolsheviks 
condemn  the  Machno  movement,  and  so  do  the  counter-revolu- 
tionaries. Both  of  them  see  in  the  peasants  who  flock  around 
Machno,  as  well  as  in  himself,  only  bands  and  bandits,  which  must 
be  fought  and  exterminated,  because  they  stand  in  the  way  of  any 
government.  The  mensheviks,  as  well  as  the  right  social-revolu- 
tionaries, yes,  even  part  of  the  left,  condemn  the  base  tactics  of 
the  bolshevik  government  in  dealing  with  Machno,  but  they  also 
turn  against  Machno,  because  they  are  for  a  unified  and  central- 
istic  state  army  and  against  the  Povstanzy.  The  maximalists, 
the  social  revolutionaries  of  the  left,  the  largest  part  of  the  syn- 

122 


dicalists  and  the  anarchists  defend  the  Machno  movement,  be- 
cause they  themselves  desire  no  party  rule  and  combat  centralism. 
Thus  one  learns,  when  Machno  is  under  discussion,  less  truth 
about  Machno  than  truth  about  the  standpoint  of  the  disputants. 
An  objective  opinion  of  this  movement  one  can  only  get  by  doing 
like  the  writer  of  this  story,  that  is,  by  listening  to  all  opinions 
in  the  matter  without  being  a  member  of  any  of  the  Russian 
parties. 

If  we  now  free  ourselves  from  all  party  opinions  and  hold 
fast  to  the  objective  facts  of  the  case,  the  following  historic  facts 
are  undeniable.  The  Machno  movement  in  Ukraine  was  originally 
a  movement  of  the  peasants  against  hostile  invasion.  The  re- 
bellious peasants  did  not  content  themselves  with  fighting  against 
the  Germans  and  Austrians,  but  in  the  course  of  their  battle  they 
turned  against  every  government.  As  in  the  course  of  events  all 
governments  through  the  war  came  into  Ukraine  from  the  out- 
side, the  peasants,  who  in  some  localities  had  had  13  govern- 
ments, conceived  of  each  one  of  them  as  a  tyranny  coming  from 
the  outside. 

Their  fight  is  a  struggle  for  their  own  independence.  Whether 
they  are  in  a  position  to  regulate  their  own  affairs  according  to 
libertarian  principles,  that  is  a  question  of  the  greatest  historic 
significance.  But  this  question  cannot  be  answered,  solved  or  de- 
cided through  the  different  governments  who  wished,  and  still 
wish,  to  get  a  footing  in  Ukraine.  It  exclusively  depends  on  the 
peasants. 

The  position  of  the  Russian  Soviet  Government  towards 
Ukraine  and  the  rebellious  peasants  is  conditioned  by  the  char- 
acter of  the  Soviet  government  in  itself.  Although  the  bolshevik 
party  is  a  revolutionary  party,  it  still  is  the  representative  of  the 
Russian  state.  That  it  calls  that  state  a  proletarian  state  changes 
nothing  in  the  fact  that  they  judge  everything  from  the  point  of 
view  of  the  interest  of  this  state,  and  must  act  in  the  interest  of 
that  state.  The  maintenance  of  that  state  requires  a  central  con- 
trol of  all  territory,  and  the  subordination  of  all  groups,  unions 
and  organizations  under  the  central  body  which  in  Russia  is  the 
Council  of  the  Peoples  Commissars;  in  bourgeois  democracies  the 
parliaments.  The  Russian  Soviet  government  must  insist  on  the 
subordination  of  the  Machno  peasant  movement  if  it  does  not 
want  to  sacrifice  the  fundamental  principle  of  its  being. 

As  the  main  thing  is  the  maintenance  of  that  principle,  the 
question  as  to  the  means  for  that  end  is  of  a  subordinate  nature. 
I  submit  it  to  the  conviction  of  each  individual  to  approve  of  or 
reject  the  tactics  of  the  bolsheviks  against  Machno.  The  defenders 
of  the  state  idea  cannot  in  principle  reject  any  means  which 
serve  to  support  and  keep  up  the  state.  They  may  reject  the 
special  tactics  of  the  bolsheviks  but,  unless  they  are  anti-state 
opponents  of  the  bolsheviks,  they  reject  these  tactics  only  be- 
cause it  is  the  bolsheviks.  But  they  have  always  proven  to  do  the 
very  same  thing  when  they  themselves  have  the  power.  Partic- 

123 


ularly  the  defenders  of  the  bourgeois  order  of  society,  who  pre- 
cipitated the  people  of  the  earth  into  the  valley  of  sorrow  through 
the  war,  have  no  right  to  condemn  the  bolsheviks.  For  they  have 
proven  whither  their  world  order  leads:  to  the  greatest  misery 
that  has  ever  come  over  man. 

One  of  the  things  which  runs  against  our  taste  and  which 
is  constantly  being  used  by  the  defenders  of  the  state,  not  only 
by  the  proverbial  diplomat  but  also  by  all  politicians,  is  lying. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  bolsheviks  can  no  more  get  along  without 
this  means  than  the  capitalist  state  can.  As  an  example,  the  bol- 
shevik papers  write  that  Gabrilenko,  who  was  taken  captive  by 
the  bolsheviks  and  imprisoned  in  Charkov,  as  well  as  Tschubenko, 
and  other  Machno  men,  had  said  that  Machno  was  a  bandit  and 
that  they  did  not  want  to  have  anything  more  to  do  with  him. 
This  was  do<ne  for  the  purpose  of  discrediting  Machno  with  the 
population.  When  later,  in  October  1920,  Gabrilenko  was  let  out 
of  prison  and  heard  of  this,  he  was  terribly  agitated  and  chal- 
lenged them  rather  to  kill  him,  for  when  he  came  to  Machno, 
his  men  would  do  it  anyhow,  as  they  would  consider  him  a  traitor. 

A  second  example.  When  the  bolshevik  papers  in  Ukraine 
wrote,  in  July,  1920,  that  Machno  fought  against  the  bolsheviks 
and  worked  together  with  Wrangel,  then  two  Charkov  anarchists, 
Joseph,  the  Emigrant,  and  Makrousov  went  to  Rakovsky,  presi- 
dent of  the  republic,  and  said  that  they  held  this  untrue.  They 
asked  the  permission  of  the  government  to  send  an  anarchist 
delegation  to  Machno,  in  order  to  investigate  the  case.  Rakovsky 
promised  to  do  so.  Makrousov  was  a  brigade  commander  of  the 
Red  Army,  and  it  was  his  division  which  drove  the  Poles  out  of 
Kiev.  But  when  Makrousov,  whom  they  respected  for  his  mili- 
tary achievements  (although  he  was  an  anarchist)  was  away, 
about  twenty  anarchists  were  arrested  by  the  extra-ordinary  com- 
mission of  Charkov,  because  it  was  assumed  that  the  anarchists 
who  wished  to  go  to  Machno  had  connection  with  him.  They  were 
accused  of  conspiracy.  Most  of  them  had  to  be  released  for  lack 
of  evidence.  But  one  of  them,  Josef,  the  Emigrant,  was  kept  in 
prison.  He  went  on  a  hunger  strike  and  after  eight  days  was  re- 
leased. 

If  it  had  been  as  the  bolsheviks  wrote,  they  would  have  had 
no  reason  to  arrest  these  people.  This  proves  rather  that  they 
feared  to  be  convicted  of  lying. 

In  spite  of  all  these  means  which  the  Soviet  government 
used  in  the  struggle  against  Machno,  they  did  not  succeed  in  dis- 
crediting Machno  before  the  population.  The  peasants  honor  and 
love  Machno  as  one  of  their  own,  and  there  is  hardly  another 
man  in  all  Ukraine  who  is  so*  popular  as  Machno.  The  peasants 
gave  him  the  surname  Batkno,  meaning  Little  Father.  They  have 
woven  a  wreath  of  stories  about  his  head  and  relate  the  most  in- 
credible tales  among  themselves  about  Batkno.  Machno  is  to 
them  not  a  "Mister"  (Gospodin)  but  their  "Little  Father"  (Bat- 
kno) .  No  matter  what  dangers  Batkno  throws  himself  into,  he  al- 

124 


ways  comes  out  of  them  whole,  as  by  a  wonder.  Because  Machno 
had  such  great  armies  that  were  always  dissolved  again,  only  in 
order  to  rise  up  anew;  because  he  had  to  flee  so  often,  but  al- 
ways came  back  again,  the  peasants  said  that  Batknp  could  not  be 
defeated.  There  is  a  tale  that  Batkno  was  in  Denekin's  camp  and 
in  his  tent.  He  was  disguised  and  talked  with  Denekin.  Suddenly 
he  said :  "I  am  Machno,"  and  disappeared.  As  a  sample  of  Mach- 
no's  tactics  it  is  said  that,  when  he  has  taken  a  place,  he  orders 
one  or  several  houses  vacated  and  then  pretends  that  he  is  to  live 
there.  When  evening  comes  he  goes  disguised  into  some  other 
village  and  sleeps  there  without  being  known.  Another  tale  about 
Machno  is:  in  some  village  a  small,  insignificant  peasant  (that  is 
how  Machno  looks)  sells  a  dish  of  butter.  The  buyer,  who  gets 
the  dish  also*,  can,  when  he  gets  home,  find  the  following  words 
on  the  plate:  "He  who  bought  this  butter  has  seen  Batkno- 
Machno." 

Such  a  figure  of  story  and  myth  is  Machno  in  the  mind 
of  the  peasants.  For  that  reason  it  is  plain  that  the  Machno 
movement  finds  better  response  and  reception  than  all  the  gov- 
ernment troops  coming  from  the  outside.  When  Machno  needs 
horses,  provisions,  or  rather  material  of  war,  the  peasants  gen- 
erally give  to  him  voluntarily  what  others  cannot  get  with  force. 
It  needs  only  to  be  said  that  "Batkno  needs  it,"  and  it  is  given 
without  question. 

Is  is  also  said  that  Machno,  who  as  an  anarchist  rejects 
every  compulsory  mobilization,  once  sent  out  a  call  for  a  volun- 
tary mobilization.  At  the  end  of  this  call  the  following  words  are 
said  to  have  been  added:  "Who  does  not  come  voluntarily  will 
be  shot."  Naturally,  a  peasant  movement  such  as  Machno's  can- 
not escape  such  humorous  contradictions.  It  also  happens  that  the 
peasants,  when  the  bolsheviks  want  to  mobilize  them,  declare  that 
they  already  are  mobilized  by  Machno.  Nor  is  the  Machno  move- 
ment free  from  coarse,  brutal  and  savage  traits.  Thus,  an  offi- 
cer of  the  Red  Army  relates  that  the  Machno  troops  had  made 
an  attack  upon  a  railroad  train  in  which  traveled  a  Wrangel  dep- 
utation, of  whom  some  are  said  to  have  been  Frenchmen.  The 
leader  of  the  delegation  is  said  to  have  been  a  very  stout  gentle- 
man. The  Machno  soldiers  in  the  struggle  killed  the  whole  delega- 
tion. But  the  thick  leader  they  opened  up,  after  he  was  dead,  and 
then  buttoned  the  coat  again.  When  the  leader  later  was  discov- 
ered, he  could  not  be  recognized,  because  it  was  a  corpulent  man 
they  sought.  But  among  the  dead  were  only  thin  ones. 

For  such  horrors  Machno  should  not,  of  course,  be  held  re- 
sponsible. The  peasants  are  so  brutalized  through  the  incessant 
wars,  revolutions  and  struggles,  during  which  they  had  to  suffer 
terribly.  When,  for  instance,  the  Poles  staged  their  entry  into 
the  Poltava  gouvernement,  the  peasants  looked  with  avaricious 
eyes  at  their  well  fed  horses  and  decided  in  advance  on  how  they 
should  be  divided  when  they  had  chased  the  Poles  away.  A  noisy 
quarrel  arose  in  the  presence  of  a  Polish  officer.  When  he  asked 

125 


them  what  they  were  fighting  about,  they  answered  him  bluntly: 
" About  who  will  own  your  horse."  The  logic  of  the  peasants  is 
very  simple:  We  want  to  live  for  ourselves  and  not  be  disturbed. 
Who  comes  "to  us  and  wants  to  rule  over  us  will  be  slain  and  his 
property  will  be  distributed. 

To  have  thrown  the  peasants  upon  this  primitive,  savage, 
uncultivated  level,  through  which  the  cultural  development  not 
only  was  stopped  but  set  back,  that  is  the  work  of  those  who  lit 
the  flame  of.  the  world  war.  The  blame  for  this  brutalizing  of 
men  falls  upon  them. 

The  conditions  under  which  the  Machno  army  declared  itself 
prepared  to  fight  together  with  the  Red  Army  against  Wrangel 
were  laid  down  in  the  form  of  a  pact  on  October  16,  1920,  which 
was  signed  by  the  former  Hungarian  People's  Commissar  Bela 
Kun  and  by  a  representative  of  the  Machno  army.  It  reads  as 
follows : 

AGREEMENT. 

in  regard  to  provisional  co-operation  in  the  military  opera- 
tions between  the  Ukrainian  Soviet  Republic  and  the  revo- 
lutionary guerilla  army  of  Ukraine,  called  "Machnovtzi" : 

(1)  The  revolutionary  guerilla  army  of  the  Machnovtzi 
joins  the  forces  of  the  republican  army  as  a  guerilla  army, 
which  in  its  operations  is  subordinated  to  the  supreme  com- 
mand of  the  Red  Army.    But  it  retains  its  previous  organ- 
ization, without  adopting  the  principles  and  the  fundament- 
als of  the  regular  Red  Army. 

(2)  The  revolutionary  guerilla  army  of  the  Machnovtzi, 
which  is  located  o<n  the  territory  of  the  Soviets  along  or 
across  the  front,  shall  not  take  up  in  its  ranks  such  parts  of 
the  Red  Army  as  wish  to  desert  to  it. 

Note:    The  parts  of  the  Red  Army  or  the  isolated  red 
soldiers  who  in  Wrangel's  rear  come  together  with  the  revo- 
lutionary guerilla  army,  shall  again  unite  with  the  Red  Army 
when  they  meet  with  it. 

The  guerilla  Machnovtzi  who  are  still  in  Wrangel's  rear, 
as  well  as  the  population  which  in  those  parts  of  the  country 
have  entered  the  guerilla  army,  remain  in  the  ranks  of  the 
latter,  even  if  they  have  before  been  mobilized  by  the  Red 
Army. 

(3)  The  purpose  of  the  argreement  between  the  com- 
mand of  the  Red  Army  and  the  revolutionary  guerilla  army 
"Machnovtzi,"  is  to  annihilate  the  common  enemy,  the  white 
army.   The  Machnovtzi  declare  themselves  in  agreement  with 
the  request  of  the  command  of  the  Red  Army  to  discontinue 
the  hostilities  of  the  population  against  the  Red  Army.    At 

126 


the  same  time  the  Soviet  Government  announces  the  agree- 
ments entered  into,  in  order  to  obtain  the  greatest  possible 
results  in  the  tasks  designated. 

(4)  The  families  of  the  soldiers  of  the  revolutionary 
guerilla  army  "Machnoytzi,"  who  live  on  the  territory  of  the 
Soviet  republic,  are  entitled  to  the  same  rights  as  the  soldiers 
of  the  Red  Army  and  shall  receive  from  the  Ukrainian  Soviet 
Government  the  relief  agreed  upon. 

AGREEMENTS 

in  regard  to  provisional  co-operation  in  political  questions 
between  the  Soviet  Government  of  Ukraine  and  the  revolu- 
tionary guerilla  army  of  the  Machnovtzi : 

(1)  The  immediate  liberation  of  all  those  persecuted  and 
the  discontinuance  of  all  further  persecution  in  the  domain 
of  the  Soviet  Republic  against  all  Machnovtzi  and  anarchists, 
with  the  exception  of  those  who  have  carried  on  an  armed 
fight  against  the  Soviet  Government. 

(2)  Complete  free  agitation  and  propaganda  in  words 
as  well  as  through  the  press  for  all  Machnovtzi  and  anarch- 
ists and  their  ideas  and  principles,  with  observance  of  mili- 
tary censorship  in  military  matters.     For  the  issuing  of  all 
anarchist   and   Machnovtzi   publications    (books,   magazines, 
papers,  etc.),  which  are  recognized  by  the  Soviet  Government 
as  revolutionary  organizations,  the  Soviet  State  places  all  the 
technical  material  at  their  disposition  on  the  basis  of  the  gen- 
eral rules  which  apply  to  publications. 

(3)  Free  participation  in  the  election  to  the  Soviets, 
as  well  as  right  for  Machnovtzi  and  anarchists  to  become 
members  of  the  Soviets,  and  besides,  free  participation  in  the 
preparations  for  the  next  V.  Soviet  Congress  of  Ukraine, 
which  will  take  place  in  December,  1920,  is  guaranteed. 

Accepted  by  the  representatives  of  both  parties  to  the 
agreement  at  the  conference  on  October  16,  1920. 

Signed  by 

BELA  KUN, 
POPOFF, 

After  these  agreements  were  entered  into,  it  became  possible 
to  conquer  Wrangel's  white  armies,  due  to  the  co-operation  be- 
tween the  Red  Army  and  the  Machnovtzi.  But  after  the  victory 
of  the  Red  Army,  the  Soviet  Government  broke  these  agreements 
and  started  a  merciless  battle  against  the  Machno  detachment. 
And  all  anarchists  of  Ukraine  were  again  put  in  prison. 

The  Soviet  government  used  the  same  methods  against  the 
anarchists  and  the  Machnovtzi  as  the  German  government  used 

1C7 


at  the  outbreak  of  the  world  war  when  marching  into  Belgium; 
all  agreements  are  nothing  but  a  scrap  of  paper.  This  is  apt  to 
mean  the  end  of  the  Machno  movement. 

How  rapidly  the  Soviet  government  forgot  its  agreement, 
their  conduct  toward  the  Machno  people  shows.  Wollin  and  Tschu- 
benko,  mentioned  abo<ve,  who  were  9  months  in  a  Moscow  prison 
and  released  in  October,  were  again  arrested  in  the  house  of  their 
friend  N.  Pavlov,  Bolschoi  Tschernitschevski  No.  18.  When,  on 
October  24,  a  membership  meeting  of  the  anarchists  took  place 
in  that  house,  the  Tscheka  (Extra-ordinary  Commission)  broke 
in  and  wanted  to  arrest  Tschubenko.  But  as  he  could  not  be  found, 
all  of  those  present — about  50  men — were  taken  along,  and  to-day, 
January,  1921,  some  of  them  are  still  in  prison.  But  Wollin  was 
arrested  on  December  1  at  a  conference  of  the  anarcho-syndical- 
ists in  Charkov — the  conference  was  entirely  legal  and  permitted 
by  the  Tscheka — together  with  all  the  other  participants,  among 
whom  was  also  the  above  mentioned  Pavlov. 

The  forecast  I  made  in  regard  to  Machno's  early  annihila- 
tion by  the  bolsheviks  proved  to  be  correct.  Fourteen  days  after 
I  had  the  manuscript  of  this  book  ready,  and  before  it  was  yet 
in  print,  the  telegraph  brought  the  information  (a  Rosta  notice) 
that  Machno's  troops  were  being  disarmed  by  the  bolsheviks.  The 
Rosta  bureau  in  Stockholm,  which  has  the  most  direct  connection 
with  Russia  over  Reval,  sent  out  a  telegram  in  these  words: 

"Moscow,  December  7,  1920  (Rosta). — The  Soviet  comman- 
der at  the  Southern  front  has  started  a  merciless  fight  on  all 
the  robber  bands  under  Machno,  which  still  operate  in  the 
Ukraine.  The  operations  have  been  very  successful.  The  largest 
part  of  the  Machno  detachments  are  already  split  up  or  dis- 
armed." 

But  now  the  "Rothe  Fahne"  (Red  Flag)  of  Vienna  also 
prints  a  news  item  coming  from  Christiania,  in  which  it  says: 

"In  the  struggle  with  Wrangel  the  Machno  troops  have, 
without  obeying  the  orders  of  the  Red  Army  command,  con- 
tinued to  plunder  peaceful  inhabitants  and  to  irresponsibly 
take  up  various  robber  bands  in  their  army.  The  revolution- 
ary War  Council  of  the  Southern  front  has,  after  the  liqui- 
dation of  the  Wrangel  army,  sent  out  an  order  to  change  the 
Machno  troops  into  common  disciplined  parts  of  the  Red 
Army.  The  order  was  caused  by  the  fact  that  the  Machno 
troops  had  undertaken  regular  plunderings  of  cities  and  vil- 
lages, plundering  not  only  the  population  but  the  store  of 
ammunition,  and  had  attacked  red  soldiers,  in  order  to  get 
hold  of  weapons.  In  the  villages  the  Machno  troops  have 
aided  the  rich  peasants,  who  sabotaged  the  grain  deliveries 
to  the  hungering  gO'Uvernements.  After  a  partial  change 
of  the  Machno  troops  into  a  regular  army,  they  were  given 
orders  to  immediately  start  off  for  the  Caucasus.  Instead  of 
obeying  this  order,  Machno  started  hostilities  against  the  Red 

128 


Army  on  November  23.    Machno' s  traitorous  plan  was  not 
successful,  and  at  present  his  main  forces  are  already  beat- 
en, thanks  to  the  prompt  and  energetic  steps  of  the  com- 
mander of  the  South-front.    The  Machnp  artillery  has  fallen 
into  our  hands.    Our  troops  have  received  order  to  merci- 
lessly exterminate  the  Machno  bandits,  who  traitorously  dis- 
turb the  building  up  of  Soviet  Ukraine." 
That  the  bolsheviks,  after  the  victory  over  Wrangel,  would 
annihilate  Machno  was  plain — after  they  had  used  them  as  their 
instrument  in  the  struggle  against  Wrangel.    But  it  is  also  clear 
that  they  had  to  try  to  surround  this  act  with  an  appearance  of 
righteousness  and  to  justify  their  actions.    For  that  reason  it 
need  not  surprise  anybody  that  the  bolsheviks  again  take  recourse 
to  lies.   Having  previously  read  how  they  before  took  back  their 
own  lies,  calling  it  all  a  mistake  and  blaming  it  all  on  the  re- 
ports of  the  French  capitalist  papers,  we  will  also  properly  ap- 
preciate the  news  now  before  us.    It  is  really  quite  remarkable 
that  "the  peaceful  inhabitants"  of  Ukraine  themselves  never  have 
anything  against  Machno,  but  only  against  the  foreign  Red  Army. 
But  what  is  correct  in  this  report  is,  that  "the  peaceful  building  up 
of  the  Soviet  government  of  Moscow"  was  being  sabotaged  by  the 
Ukrainian  peasants  who  fought  under  Machno,  for  that  is  a  gov- 
ernment the  peasants  do  not  want.    They  would  rather  be  "plun- 
dered" by  Machno  than  by  the  requisition  detachments  of  the  Red 
Army. 

The  Socialist  Movement  in  Ukraine 

The  socialist  movement  of  Ukraine  has  a  more  or  less  an- 
archist character.  This  character  is  to  be  traced  back  less  to 
theories  and  doctrines  than  to  the  influence  which  the  political 
and  economic  conditions  of  the  country  exerted  upon  the  mind 
of  the  peasants. 

Marxism,  which  in  Russia  came  to  expression  in  the  form  of 
bolshevism  and  menshevism,  has  less  of  a  footing  in  Ukraine. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  Russian  Peasant  and  People's  Socialism  of 
the  Narodnik  Social-Revolutionaries  is  more  strongly  represented. 
This  "people's  socialism,"  which  is  penetrated  with  strong  an- 
archist tendencies,  has  been  able,  so  far,  to  hold  back  Marxian 
and  West-European  socialism.  In  Ukraine,  Bakunin  lives  stronger 
than  Marx. 

In  Ukraine  all  socialist  tendencies  are  represented.  The  men- 
sheviks,  the  bolsheviks,  the  right  and  the  left  social-revolution- 
aries, the  maximalists,  the  barbists,  the  syndicalists  and  the  an- 
archists. The  bolsheviks  and  the  mensheviks  are  both  Marxians. 
In  consonance  with  their  theories  they,  principally,  sought  their 
following  among  the  industrial  proletarians  of  the  cities.  All 
other  tendencies  mentioned  here  paid  their  principal  attention 
to  the  peasant  question,  as  was  natural  in  an  agrarian  country 

129 


like  Russia,  and  for  this  reason  these  parties  enjoy  a  greater  fol- 
lowing among  the  peasants  than  the  former.  With  the  exception 
of  the  right  social-revolutionaries,  who,  like  the  mensheviks,  were 
in  favor  of  the  national  assembly,  the  other  parties  and  organiza- 
tions stand  close  to  one  another,  especially  in  their  agrarian 
program.  They  are  all  in  favor  of  the  soviet  system,  but  not  in 
favor  of  party  Soviets.  In  this  they  differ  from  the  bolsheviks, 
who  by  Soviets  mean  the  Soviets  of  their  own  party.  Thus,  there 
are  in  Kiev  and  Poltava,  in  the  cities  as  well  as  in  whole  gouv- 
ernements,  no  Soviets  at  all,  but  only  revolutionary  committees. 
The  revolutionary  committees  are  put  in  by  the  bolshevik  party, 
and  a\re  not  elected  by  the  people.  In  Poltava  the  Soviets  have 
never  been  called  together.  After  the  Poles  had  been  driven  away, 
the  Executive  Committee  of  the  Communist  Party  (bolsheviks) 
took  over  the  power  and  organized  everything  themselves.  Not 
even  the  communists  were  called  in  to  the  meetings  of  the  Ex- 
ecutive Committee,  nor  called  in  for  meetings  of  their  own.  For 
these  communists  were  workers.  The  party  of  communists  con- 
sists, for  the-  present,  largely  of  non-workers.  After  Kiev  went 
over  from  the  hands  of  the  Poles  into  the  hands  of  the  Red 
Army,  no  Soviets  were  elected  during  the  whole  summer  of  1920, 
only  revolutionary  committees  being  installed.  When  later,  in 
September,  the  elections  took  place,  there  were  over  100  non- 
workers  out  of  the  125  communists  who  were  elected  to  the 
soviet  from  the  district  of  Kiev.  It  was  principally  Soviet  offi- 
cials, specialists,  etc. 

These  figures  speak  a  plain  language.  They  show  us  that  the 
Ukrainian  Soviet  government  carries  this  name,  partly  without 
right,  as  there  are  important  and  significant  gouvernements  which 
have  no  Soviets.  They  show  us  further  that  the  Communist  Party 
of  the  bolsheviks  is  no  absolute  soviet  party,  properly  speaking, 
but  only  an  opportunist  soviet  party.  For  when  it  pleases  the 
party  it  calls  in  the  Soviets,  and  when  the  Soviets  do  not  suit  them, 
they  send  them  home. 

The  other  parties  and  movements  are  in  favor  of  the  Soviets, 
as  the  idea  of  the  Soviets  came  to  light  through  the  revolution 
itself  and  all  revolutionary  parties,  naturally,  had  to  accept  that 
system.  The  peasants  themselves  are  in  favor  of  the  Soviets. 
Although  the  largest  part  of  them  do  not  belong  to  any  party, 
they  still  are  all  for  the  Soviets.  They  write  on  their  banners: 
"Long  live  the  Soviets."  The  Maximalist  Union,  who  stands  for 
a  maximum  program,  the  left  social-revolutionaries,  the  Interna- 
tionalists and  the  barbists,  the  syndicalists  and  the  anarchists 
are  for  the  slogan:  All  poiver  to  the  Soviets.  No  power  to  the 
parties. 

Against  these  slogans  the  bolshevik  party  stands  in  opposi- 
tion. They  declare  that  these  paroles  are  counter-revolutionary 
and  therefore  they  combat  all  these  parties  as  counter-revolution- 
ary. Thus  it  is  that  the  business  offices  of  these  parties,  their 

130 


propaganda  bureaus  and  their  book  stores  were  closed  by  the 
Soviet  government.   They  now  continue  their  work  illegally. 

We  cannot  deny  that  there  is  a  certain  justification  for  the 
opinion  of  the  bolsheviks,  that  the  parole,  "All  power  to  the  Sov- 
iets; no  power  to  the  party,"  is  useful  to  the  counter-revolution. 
In  some  cases  it  has  been  shown  that  in  the  soviet  elections  the 
bourgeoisie  got  the  majority  through  election  frauds,  trickery,  or 
other  manipulations,  yes,  many  times  through  pure  slipshodiness, 
or  that  they,  when  in  the  minority,  had  prevented  the  workers 
from  coming  to  the  Soviets,  through  obstruction  or  sabotage,  so 
that  there  was  no  quorum.  The  counter-revolutionaries  pointed 
to  this,  and  it  was  easy  for  them  to  show  that  the  revolution  did 
not  bring  what  they  had  hoped  for.  The  road  was  smoothed  for 
the  counter-revolution. 

But  these  are  only  a  few  cases  against  which  we  can  bring  in 
a  great  number  of  other  cases  which  show  the  opposite.  The  fault 
of  which  the  bolsheviks  here  are  guilty  is,  that  they  are  drawing 
general  conclusions  and  thus  wish  to  handle  everything  according 
to  one  recipe.  By  this  route  they  themselves  come  to  the  position 
of  contra-revolution.  In  order  to  arrive  at  one-sided  party  rule 
there  is,  naturally,  no>  revolution  necessary.  The  revolution  is  sup- 
posed to  create  the  freest  political  forms,  and  even  a  social  rev- 
olution has  to  take  note  of  that.  Although  in  a  social  revolution 
the  change  in  economic  conditions,  the  abolition  of  private  prop- 
erty, just  forms  of  possessions,  equal  rights  of  consumption,  ra- 
tional production  of  the  necessities,  are  the  most  important  points, 
such  a  revolution  must  mean  progress  even  on  the  political  field 
and  not  retrogression  or  stagnation.  But  the  rule  of  one  party 
is  not  to  be  considered  a  revolutionary  conquest,  for  such  a  party 
rule  we  had  in  the  pre-revolutionary  epochs  and  have  in  countries 
where  the  revolution  has  not  yet  taken  place.  Even  if  we  in  Marx- 
ian fashion  call  this  class  rule,  this  rule  in  politics  always  mani- 
fests itself  as  the  rule  of  one  or  more  parties.  And  it  is  exactly 
against  this  rule  that  the  revolution  turns. 

As  will  be  seen,  the  slogan,  "All  power  to  the  Soviets,  no 
power  to  the  party,"  is  originally  and  practically  a  revolutionary 
parole  and  one  cannot  on  account  of  a  few  cases  permit  a  whole- 
sale condemnation  of  the  Soviets  as  counter-revolutionary.  For  we 
can  also  present  examples  from  the  revolution  in  the  Ukraine, 
which  show  the  exact  opposite. 

When  in  October,  1919,  Machno  captured  Alexandrovsk,  he 
called  a  congress  of  the  peasants  and  the  rest  of  the  population 
of  the  whole  gouvernement  of  Alexandrovsk.  The  organizer  of 
this  was  Wollin.  As  an  anarchist,  Wollin  was  against  all  party 
politics.  On  that  account  it  was  impossible  for  him,  for  reasons 
mentioned  above,  to  be  active  under  bolshevik  rule.  He,  conse- 
quently, called  this  congress  for  the  benefit  of  the  followers  of 
Machno.  Machno  needed  for  his  army  the  support  of  the  peas- 
ants. They  sent  messengers  to  the  villages  in  order  to  invite  the 
peasants  to  elect  delegates  to  this  congress  and  send  them  to  the 

131 


city  of  Alexandrovsk.  The  representatives  of  different  parties 
came  to  Wollin  and  pleaded  with  him  not  to  do  anything  foolish 
and  for  God's  and  the  revolution's  sake  to  put  up  party  lists,  in 
order  to  enable  the  peasants  to  send  delegates  to  the  congress  ac- 
cording to  party  lines.  They  held  that  the  rich  peasants,  the 
Kulaks,  were  in  the  majority  and  would  dominate  the  congress. 
The  whole  thing  would  be  a  great  disappointment,  they  prophe- 
sied. Wollin  answered  that  the  people  had  had  enough  of  parties 
and  that  they  now,  once  and  for  all,  must  cut  out  all  party  non- 
sense. The  congress  met,  without  any  party  delegates.  The 
peasants  themselves  did  not  want  to  have  any  parties.  When  the 
congress  opened  they  asked  if  any  parties  were  represented.  Yes, 
from  the  city  of  Alexandrovsk  there  were  seven  mensheviks 
present  who  had  been  sent  by  the  unions.  The  peasants  did 
not  want  to  have  anything  to  do  with  the  politicians.  They 
did  not  want  to  start  their  deliberations  before  the  politi- 
cians had  left  the  hall.  The  mensheviks  had  to  leave,  and  only 
then  did  they  start  with  business.  According  to  the  reports  of 
some  of  those  present,  they  had  never  before  taken  part  in  such 
a  fine,  harmonious  congress.  All  party  political  squabbling  and 
all  party  hatreds  were  eliminated.  The  peasants  discussed  only 
the  practical  questions.  It  was  a  question  of  helping  Machno  to 
continue  the  war  against  Denekin.  It  was  decided  that  everybody 
must  help.  Those  who  had  four  horses  would  have  to  give  up  two ; 
those  who  had  three  would  have  to  give  one.  Those  who  had  only 
two  horses  would  not  have  to  give  any  horses,  but  only  hay,  feed 
and  other  things.  Thus  the  congress  progressed  without  any  party 
politics,  to  the  satisfaction  of  all  the  participants  and  without  any 
domination  of  the  kulaks. 

This  example  does  not  only  show  the  emptiness  of  the  phrase 
that  party-less  Soviets  or  councils  of  workers  and  peasants  had 
to  be  counter-revolutionary.  It  also  shows  positively  that  it  is  the 
party-less  Soviets  which  are  best  able  to  order  the  economic  and 
political  affairs  of  the  revolutionary  population. 

A  further  difference  in  tactics  between  the  bolsheviks  and 
the  others,  which  can  be  traced  back  to  the  theoretical  differences, 
showed  itself  in  Jekaterinoslav.  When  the  city  was  captured  by 
Machno,  he  insisted  that  all  socialist  movements  should  have  abso- 
lute freedom  to  carry  on  their  propaganda.  As  is  well  known,  the 
bolsheviks  reject  this  freedom  as  "bourgeois  superstition."  Par- 
ticularly does  Trotzky  go  on  the  warpath  against  it  in  his  anti- 
Kautski  book  'Terrorism  and  Communism."  As  you  know,  in 
the  places  where  the  bolsheviks  rule,  they  allow  no  opposing  party 
to  issue  a  daily  paper  or  more  than  one  paper.  Under  Machno' s 
regime  it  was  possible  for  all  socialist  movements  to  issue  their 
papers  and  to  hold  their  meetings,  in  short,  to  propagate  their 
ideas.  In  Jekaterinoslav  7  daily  papers  were  issued,  two  anarchist, 
two  communist,  right  and  left  social  revolutionary*  and  menshevik 
papers.  All  socialist  tendencies  were  represented.  Only  the  bour- 
geois had  no  publicity  organ.  They  were,  naturally,  so  terrified 

132 


because  it  was  the  Machnovtzi  who  ruled,  that  they  did  not 
dare  to. 

The  proportional  strength  of  the  different  parties  in  Ukraine 
is  at  present  difficult  to  indicate,  as  all  parties,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  ruling  Communist  Party  of  the  bolsheviks,  are  illegal. 
At  the  elections  to  the  National  Assembly,  November,  1917,  the 
social-revolutionaries  obtained  62.77%  of  the  total  number  of  votes. 
The  anarchists  and  the  maximalists,  being  anti-parliamentarians, 
did  not  take  part  in  the  elections.  The  maximalists  have  a  union. 
They  do  not  call  themselves  a  party,  being  as  they  are  opposed 
to  parties.  The  left  social-revolutionaries,  the  barbists  and  the 
left  social-revolutionary  internationalists  are  also  strongly  repre- 
sented. The  anarchists  have  in  Ukraine  a  special  federation  sepa- 
rated from  the  anarchists  of  Central  Russia,  which  calls  itself 
"Nabat,"  that  is,  "Alarm."  In  numbers  this  federation  is  hardly 
larger  than  the  maximalists  and  the  left  social-revolutionaries. 
Still,  the  anarchists  had  a  greater  influence  for  the  reason  that 
they  stood  under  the  protectorate  of  their  Little  Father  (Batkno) 
Machno,  who  gave  more  support  to  them  than  to  any  other  par- 
ties. The  anarchists  have  never  identified  themselves  with  the 
Machno  movement,  but  make  use  of  the  Machno  movement  to  the 
greatest  possible  extent  and  wanted  to  make  it  serve  their  pur- 
poses. 

The  bolsheviks  arrested  Wollin  in  Alexandrovsk  in  the  begin- 
ning of  January,  1920,  after  Machno  had  fled.  As  reason  for  his 
arrest  they  gave  out  that  he  was  called  the  father  of  the  Machno 
movement.  But  this  was  impossible.  The  Machno  movement  ex- 
isted since  the  summer  of  1918.  But  Wollin  came  first  a  year  later 
to  Machno,  namely  in  the  summer  of  1919.  The  truth  is  that 
through  Wollin  the  movement  received  a  more  distinct  anarchistic 
character  and  won  in  depth  and  purity.  Wollin  himself  is  a  deep, 
pure  and  noble  man,  and  he  succeeded  in  exerting  a  strong  cult- 
ural influence  on  the  Machno  troops.  But  this  was,  of  course,  dan- 
gerous to  the  bolsheviks,  because  it  made  the  movement  more 
threatening  to  them. 

Communism  and  the  Peasantry 

Through  the  preceding  discussion  we  have  elucidated  the 
reasons  why  the  peasants  of  Ukraine  only  with  much  difficulty 
can  be  brought  under  the  common  scepter  of  a  central  govern- 
ment. These  reasons  are  less  of  an  economic  nature  than  of  a 
political  and  national  character.  If  we  want  to  classify  the  re- 
fusal of  the  peasants  to  supply  the  government  with  provisions 
as  an  economic  reason,  then  we  have  to  concede  that  economic 
reasons  play  their  part.  But  in  addition  there  are  racial  peculiari- 
ties, which  also  exert  some  influence.  Among  an  agricultural 
people  in  a  fertile  country  there  develops,  as  a  result  of  the  rela- 
tive economic  independence,  in  the  people  or  in  the  race  a  certain 

133 


sense  of  independence  with  which  a  centralist  government  is  al- 
ways bound  to  get  into  collision.  A  powerful  state  can  never  de- 
velop in  such  a  country.  The  "free-from-Rome"  tendencies  will 
always  give  the  government  plenty  to  worry  over.  We  need  only 
remember  the  permanent  anarchist  tendencies  in  Spain  and  Italy. 

The  bolsheviks  asserted  that  these  instincts  constituted  anti- 
communist  tendencies  among  the  peasants.  They  pointed  to  the 
fact  that  the  Ukrainian  peasants  did  not  have  such  a  wide-spread 
mir-organization  as  the  Russian  peasants,  that  they  did  not  have 
common  forests,  common  pasture,  and  common  fields  to  the  same 
extent,  and  declare  that  the  peasants  are  for  private  property  and 
against  the  introduction  of  communism.  They  further  say  that 
the  peasants  who  fight  under  Machno  are  Kulaks  and  fight  for 
private  property  against  the  introduction  of  communism.  But  as 
quite  large  masses  of  the  peasants,  yes,  the  majority,  are  of  that 
mind,  even  if  it  is  only  the  most  active  part  of  them  who  flock  to  the 
Povstanzy,  it  would  be  foolish  to  force  the  ideas  of  bolshevik- 
communism  on  them  against  their  will.  That  would  mean  any- 
thing else  but  freedom.  And  it  is  freedom  that  the  peasants  want ; 
that  is  what  they  have  been  fighting  for  during  half  a  decade. 
One  can  force  people  to  everything  but  not  to  freedom,  even  if 
one  were  the  most  powerful  on  earth. 

But  the  assertion  of  the  bolsheviks  is  wrong.  On  the  con- 
trary, the  Ukrainian  peasants  take  at  least  a  sympathetic  stand 
towards  the  social  revolution  and  the  new-construction  of  Ukraine, 
even  more  so  than  the  peasants  in  Russia,  where  the  great  mass 
of  the  peasants  became  conservative  as  soon  as  they  had  taken 
the  land  away  from  the  estate  owners.  The  peasants  are  in  no 
way  unfriendly  to  socialism,  but  even  show  quite  outspoken  com- 
munist tendencies. 

The  whole  peasantry  is  opposed  to  the  "pomeschtschiks" 
(large  land  owners).  They  do  not  want  the  estate  owner  back 
under  any  conditions.  They  fight  desperately  against  all  counter- 
revolutionary generals,  who  defended  the  system  of  large  estates. 
They  chased  away  Petljura,  Kaledin,  Denekin,  Grigorjev  and 
Wrangel.  And  still  Wrangel  had  drawn  a  lesson  from  the  fate  of 
his  predecessors  and  came  before  the  peasants  with  an  agrarian 
program,  in  order  to  gain  them  over  to  his  side.  No  land  owner 
was  to  be  allowed  to  own  more  than  200  Dessiatins  of  land.  (1 
Dessiatin  equal  to  2.7  acres.)  Wrangel  expected  to  gain  greater 
sympathies  with  this  than  had  come  to  the  share  of  Denekin  and 
his  predecessors.  He  believed  that  they  would  succeed  in  pulling 
the  peasants  over  to  his  side,  just  as  the  Roumanian  government 
had  pacified  the  peasants  and  understood  how  to  keep  them  from 
revolution  through  a  similar  agrarian  policy.  But  while  the  Rou- 
manian bo  jars  (land  owners)  succeeded  in  saving  themselves  with 
a  few  sacrifies  of  land,  the  Ukrainian  peasants,  who  had  become 
more  far-sighted  through  their  long  struggle,  could  see  through 
Wran gel's  purposes,  and,  although  Wrangel  was  able  to  fool  part 
of  the  peasants,  he  had  the  progressive  part  of  them  against  him. 

134 


In  the  long  run  Wrangel  could  not  have  held  out  even  if  he  had 
not  been  annihilated  by  the  Red  Army  and  Machno. 

The  peasants  were  opposed  to  the  200  Dessiatin  program  of 
Wrangel's.  But  they  are  also  opposed  to  the  50  Dessiatin  program 
of  the  bolsheviks.  The  bolsheviks  do  not  want  to  come  into  con- 
flict with  the  better  situated  peasants.  They  need  the  peasants 
and  cannot  afford  to  have  them  against  them.  Hence,  they  have 
established  the  rule  that  no*  peasant  can  have  more  than  50  Des- 
siatins  of  land.  But  the  peasants  have  in  their  congresses  taken 
a  stand  against  this  norm.  Particularly  in  this  regard  we  note 
the  above  mentioned  congress,  which  was  called  by  Machno  and 
Wollin  (in  Alexandrovsk,  October,  1919).  They  said  that  this 
maximum  is  too  high;  it  is  a  bourgeois  norm.  By  that  method 
they  would  again  create  pomeschtschiks. 

The  Marxian  theorists  of  bolshevism-communism,  from  their 
theoretical  viewpoint,  brand  the  Ukrainian  peasants  as  anti-com- 
munists and  as  defenders  of  private  property;  particularly  those 
of  them  who  fight  against  Machno.  But  my  investigations  in  the 
Ukraine  have  given  the  result  that  almost  the  opposite  is  the  case. 
The  bolshevik-communists  decree  a  more  extensive  private  owner- 
ship in  land  than  the  peasants  themselves.  The  bolshevik-commu- 
ists,  who  pretend  to  be  the  only  representatives  of  communism, 
are  less  communistic  than  the  peasants,  whom  they  designate  as 
non-communists. 

But  the  peasants  would  not  by  far  be  communists  if  they  only 
stood  for  a  smaller  maximum  parcel  of  land  than  the  bolshevik- 
communists.  This  would  at  most  prove  that  they  are  more  com- 
munistic than  the  communist  bolsheviks.  But  this  is  only  speaking 
comparatively.  About  the  positive  communism  of  the  peasants  it 
would  give  us  no  information. 

Although  the  abolition  of  private  property  in  land  is  one  of 
the  most  important  parts  of  communism,  there  are  other  things 
also,  which  belong  under  that  head,  such  as  the  regulation  of  the 
working  conditions  of  collective  labor  according  to  principles  of 
equality,  the  organizing  of  the  exchange  of  the  products  of  labor 
on  the  basis  of  justice,  the  regulating  of  mutual  relations  on  a 
libertarian  basis.  All  this  a  state  cannot  give;  not  even  a  bolshe- 
vik state.  It  can  at  most  counsel,  decree  and  order.  If  a  sound 
social  instinct  and  a  strong  sense  of  fairness  is  lacking,  a  people 
can  never  arrive  at  socialism  and  communism.  Communism  will 
not  come  by  order.  Have  the  Ukrainian  peasants  preserved  that 
instinct  through  the  terrible  years  of  the  civil  war?  If  they  have, 
then  they  will  be  ripe  for  communism;  if  not,  then  even  the 
Soviet  government  cannot  introduce  traits  in  their  ranks  which  do 
not  live  within  them. 

My  trip  through  Ukraine,  as  well  as  conversations  with  those 
who  know  Ukraine  best,  have  shown  to  me  that  there  is  reason 
for  harboring  good  hopes.  The  Ukrainian  peasants  are  coarse, 
but  they  are  good-natured  and  helpful  and  generally  have  a  strong 

135 


sense  of  justice.  One  instance  does  not,  of  course,  prove  very 
much,  but  still  it  might  be  used  as  an  illustration.  Eichenbaum- 
Wollin  listened  to  a  conversation  between  a  peasant  and  a  bolshe- 
vik-communist. The  bolshevik  wanted  to  explain  to  him  what 
communism  was.  But  the  peasant  did  not  understand  him.  The 
explanations  were  unintelligible  to  him.  Then  the  peasant  be- 
gan to  give  his  own  ideas,  how  he  would  order  everything  in 
his  village  as  he  had  thought  it  out.  And  when  he  was  through 
with  his  explanations  the  bolshevik-communist  said  to  him:  "But 
you  are  a  communist." 

"What?  I,  a  communist?"  the  peasant  answered  in  anger. 
"I  am  no  communist." 

This  peasant  showed  that  he  knew  well  how  to  regulate  his 
affairs  in  his  village,  if  nobody  disturbs  his  own  communist  experi- 
ments through  interference  from  the  outside  and  by  checking  his 
private  initiative.  Numerous  examples  can  be  quoted  where  the 
peasants  independently  arrive  at  communistic  husbandry  and  reg- 
ulation of  their  mutual  relations. 

A  visit  to  a  soviet  farm,  30  verst  from,  Charkov,  which  form- 
erly belonged  to  an  estate  owner,  gave  me  the  opportunity  to 
study  the  common  husbandry  of  the  peasants  of  that  estate.  There 
were  about  100  peasants  with  women  and  children,  a  total  of 
160  persons.  Not  one  of  them  was  a  communist,  and  still  they 
had  regulated  everything  nicely  in  justice  and  equality.  To  many 
individual  and  joint  households  the  same  thing  applies. 

The  peculiar  refusal  of  the  peasants  to  be  called  communists 
may  be  traced  to  the  fact  that  the  peasants  heard  the  name  com- 
munists only  from  the  government,  which  calls  itself  by  that 
name.  But  the  same  government  sends  its  soldiers  into  the  vil- 
lage, in  order  to  requisition  provisions,  which  the  peasants  are 
unwilling  to  give.  Communists  are,  consequently,  to  the  peas- 
ant's mind,  requisitioning  soldiers  or  those  who  send  them.  And 
as  there  are,  besides,  a  great  number  of  commissars,  who  also 
call  themselves  "communist"  but  are  actually  swindlers  (a  con- 
dition for  which  the  bolsheviks  are  not  to  blame  but  against  which 
they  can  fight  only  with  difficulty  in  the  large  country) ,  who  fleece 
the  peasants,  there  has  in  Ukraine  arisen  a  play  upon  words 
among  the  peasants  by  which  they  want  to  ridicule  communism. 

While  thus  the  communists  are  not  well  liked  among  the  peas- 
ants, the  bolsheviks  have  with  them  a  better  reputation.  For  it 
was  the  bolsheviks  who  brought  them  peace.  Through  the  peace 
of  Brest-Litovsk  Lenin  has  won  great  popularity  for  his  party. 
For  that  reason  the  peasants  love  the  bolsheviks  but  hate  the  com- 
munists. They  do  not  understand  that  it  is  one  and  the  same 
party. 

With  the  help  of  some  intelligent  elements  among  them  the 
peasants  regulate  their  larger  common  affairs.  They  called  in  the 
larger  congresses,  formed  co-operatives,  etc.  It  is  true  that  they 
have  not  the  right  understanding  in  all  things,  nor  a  strong  initia- 

136 


tive.  They  still  partly  believe  in  the  ability  of  the  intelligentzia. 
Thus  they  believed  that  Machno,  who  was  such  a  good  leader  for 
them  in  battle,  should  also  be  able  to  tell  them  what  they  should 
do  in  other  matters.  For  that  reason  they  would  ask  Machno 
what  to  do  in  most  any  matter  of  business.  Machno  is  said  to 
have  answered  them  to  do  what  they  themselves  considered  best 
to  do.  But  the  peasants  were  not  helped  with  that.  They  wanted 
advice.  And  he  who  can  give  them  disinterested  counsel,  is  natur- 
ally welcome  among  them. 

Communism,  with  the  Ukrainian  peasant,  is  not  a  theory 
but  their  practical  life.  The  large  estate  owners,  the  pomescht- 
schiks  proved  to  them  the  disadvantages  of  private  ownership  in 
land,  and  the  injustice  that  springs  from  it.  And  this  injustice 
nourished  their  envy.  Marxism  may  eternally  proclaim  that  so- 
cialism is  not  a  matter  of  privilege,  but  the  peasants  feel  the  in- 
justice which  has  come  into  their  life  with  unequal  distribution  of 
the  land  and  want  to  abolish  it.  The  others  shall  not  have  any 
more  than  we.  By  the  enemies  of  socialism  this  has  always  been 
branded  as  the  envy  of  the  property-less.  But  this  envy  of  the 
property-less  is  for  the  peasants  a  regulative  principle.  It  ca/r- 
ries  within  itself  equality  in  the  ownership  of  land,  and  this  leads 
the  peasants  to  communism. 


The  Economic  Situation  in  the  Ukraine 

If  the  land  of  the  estate  owners  had  come  into  the  hands  of 
the  peasants  before  the  war,  it  would  without  question  have 
meant  an  improvement  of  the  lot  of  the  peasants  and  therewith 
an  uplift  of  their  economic  position.  Even  as  it  was,  the  change 
brought  with  it  an  improvement  in  the  position  of  the  poor  peas- 
ants, that  is,  an  improvement  in  the  position  of  the  peasants  who 
had  become  empoverished  through  the  war.  By  this  we  wish  to 
say  that  without  these  measures  of  the  revolution  the  peasants 
would  have  been  in  a  worse  position  than  they  now  are,  but  not 
in  a  better  position  than  before  the  war.  It  is  with  the  peasants 
as  it  was  with  the  population  in  Germany.  They  complain  and 
wish  pre-war  times  back.  Before  the  war  the  peasants  had  boots, 
clothes  and  petroleum — things  that  they  lack  to-day.  They  have 
few  agricultural  implements  and  fewer  agricultural  machines.  In- 
dustry is  very  poorly  developed,  and  during  the  -war  there  was 
practically  only  war  industry.  They  obtain  very  few  industrial 
products  and  had  to  give  up  their  agricultural  products  for  the 
war. 

When  the  bolsheviks  had  taken  possession  of  the  Ukraine,  they 
prohibited  free  trade,  so  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  cities  found 
themselves  in  great  straits  for  the  necessities  of  life.  The  pur- 
pose of  the  bolsheviks  was  a  double  one. 

First,  they  wanted  to  prevent  the  provisions  and  use-objects 
from  becoming  objects  of  trade  and  speculation.  Theoretically, 

137 


from  the  standpoint  of  socialism,  the  matter  presents  itself  this 
way:  that  through  free  trading  the  goods  produced  are  not  di- 
rectly distributed,  but  serve  for  profit  mongering,  personal  en- 
richment or  to  maintain  the  life  of  those  who  occupy  themselves 
therewith.  Instead  of  turning  to  productive  work,  they  ' 'trade." 
But  in  practice  this  is  often  not  the  case.  Especially  is  the  Rus- 
sian market  the  place  where  the  peasants  sell  their  home  products, 
which  they  have  in  no  manner  acquired  by  purchase  or  specula- 
tion. But  as  it  was  very  difficult  under  the  given  circumstances 
to  define  who  was  a  peasant  and  who>  was  a  trader,  this  measure 
has  quite  often  hit  the  wrong  person,  and  particularly  in  the  small 
cities.  The  so-called  speculators  are  often  the  poorest. 

In  the  second  place  this  measure  was  calculated  to  force  the 
bourgeoisie  to  go  to  ivork.  For  if  there  was  nothing  for  them  to 
buy  and  if  they  got  nothing  to  eat,  it  was  thought  that  they  would 
be  compelled  to  work.  But  in  this  calculation  they  certainly  were 
mistaken,  for  most  of  them  found  other  ways  and  means  of  evad- 
ing this  rule.  In  the  long  run  it  would  not  be  possible  for  the 
bourgeoisie  to  dodge  work.  The  soviet  government  gradually  dis- 
covers the  tricks  of  the  bourgeoisie  and  resorts  to  other  measures. 
Work-books  are  introduced,  the  inhabitants  are  registered,  no  food 
stuffs  are  delivered  to  non-workers,  etc.,  so  that  they  cannot  find 
any  way  out  except  to  perform  some  sort  of  work.  Then  they 
receive  food  rations  like  everybody  else. 

They  have,  consequently,  not  attained  what  they  aimed  at. 
It  has  been  tried  on  a  great  scale  to  introduce  production  for  use. 
But  on  a  small  scale  so-called  speculation  flourishes,  namely  the 
trade  with  food  stuffs  and  other  use-objects,  stronger  than  form- 
erly. All  larger  factories  and  farms  are  nationalized  and  work 
for  the  account  of  the  state.  But  the  smaller  establishments  (and 
in  the  Ukraine  small  industry  prevails  everywhere,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  the  large  sugar  industry  and  the  metal  industry)  are 
still  all  in  private  hands  and  work  for  private  interests,  just  as 
before  the  revolution.  The  economic  life,  consequently,  continues 
in  this  respect  to  move  on  private  capitalist  lines,  even  if  the  in- 
dividual employers  are  no  Stinnes  or  Thyssen(  the  two  largest 
German  capitalists) .  In  Kiev,  for  instance,  2  or  3  months  after 
the  occupation  by  the  bolsheviks,  everything  remained  as  in  other 
capitalists  countries.  Many  new  shops  were  opened,  and  only 
those  were  compelled  to  close  which  had  no  more  goods.  But  as 
they  receive  no  goods  from  the  bolsheviks,  one  after  the  other  is 
compelled  to  give  up  his  business.  After  that  the  shop  keepers 
enter  the  service  of  the  soviet  government,  in  some  commissariat 
or  bureau.  They  become  officials,  state  officials.  But  on  the  salary 
that  they  now  receive  they  cannot  live,  and  they  continue  to 
smuggle  and  speculate.  Others  had  already  started  to  speculate, 
contrary  to  the  law,  of  course.  They  cannot  stop  that  any  more 
than  the  cat  can  stop  catching  mice. 

Even  the  peasants,  who  by  nature  are  against  the  system 
of  commercialism,  as  they  derive  no  benefits  therefrom,  have 

138 


now  also  taken  to  speculation,  as  it  is  called  in  bolshevik 
language.  This  speculation  consists  in  this,  that  instead  of 
delivering  their  products  to  the  state,  they  sell  them  at  the 
highest  possible  prices.  This  is  not  done  out  of  lust  for 
speculation,  but  because  they  cannot  do  anything  else.  They 
would  willingly  turn  it  all  over  to  the  state,  if  they  could  only 
obtain  the  goods  that  they  need.  But  the  state  has  nothing  and 
can  give  them  nothing.  Thus  they  are  compelled  to  buy  in.  free 
trade  the  objects  they  require.  For  one  pud  of  flour  (34  Ibs.) 
they  receive  in  free  trade  about  21,000  rubles,  but  from  the 
state  they  receive  about  100-200  rubles.  It  is  therefore  easily 
explainable  that  they  would  rather  sell  their  goods  at  speculation 
prices,  although  they  might  get  punished  for  it,  than  turn 
them  over  to  the  state.  But,  in  spite  of  receiving  so  much 
for  their  products  in  free  trade,  they  are  not  anxious  for  the 
money.  They  are  willing  to  forego  the  money.  They  do*  not 
want  money  at  all  but  would  give  up  everything  to  the  state 
if  they  only  could  get  what  they  need.  Money  has  no  value 
for  them.  They  have  so>  much  money  that  they  paper  their 
walls  and  their  wedding  carriages  with  them.  What  they  want 
is  articles  that  they  can  use.  The  traveler  who  comes  to  a 
village  can  frequently  buy  nothing,  even  if  he  has  ever  so  much 
money,  but  he  can  get  anything  for  a  piece  of  cloth,  a  glass 
of  salt,  or  something  similar. 

But  there  is  no  doubt  that  this  speculation  evil  will  im- 
mediately stop  at  the  moment  when  the  peasants  receive  what 
they  need  from  the  state.  Then  the  government  will  also  receive 
from  the  peasants,  voluntarily,  all  that  it  needs  and  cannot  take 
even  with  force.  Then  the  requisitions  and  the  resulting  hostility 
between  the  peasants  and  the  government  will  cease  and  the 
greatest  obstacle  separating  the  peasant  and  the  soviet  govern- 
ment would  be  removed,  and  it  would  be  much  easier  for  the 
latter  to  become  reconciled  with  the  peasants.  The  peasants 
would  then  no  longer  need  to  be  "counter-revolutionary",  the 
revolution  would  get  a  firm  footing  in  the  country  districts 
and  would  have  a  chance  to  build  up  and  develop  freely. 

But  that  can  only  take  place  if  Soviet  Russia  has  peace, 
if  the  entente  at  once  ceases  to  inflict  war  upon  that  unhappy 
country,  if  the  blockade  is  called  off  and  if  goods  comes  into  the 
country.  That  the  Russian  revolution  in  the  form  of  bolshevism 
should  have  become  such  a  regime  of  terror  with  its  requisition 
policy,  that  fact  has  its  causes  principally  in  the  war  and  in 
the  blockade.  The  originator  of  this  blockade  and  this  war,  the 
enemies  of  the  revolution  in  France,  England  and  America, 
the  defenders  of  the  capitalist  states  are  the  ones  upon  whom 
the  blame  should  be  placed  for  the  stagnation  of  the  Russian 
revolution.  //  with  bolshevism  we  mean  the  liberty  crushing 
policy  of  the  Russian  Soviet  government,  principally  against 
the  peasants,  then  bolshevism  is  best  co\mbatted  with  the  slogan: 
Peace  with  Russia;  Lifting  of  the  blockade;  Hands  off  Russia. 

139 


As  free  commerce  was  tied  up  by  the  government,  it  was 
forced  to  create  some  organs  by  means  of  which  the  population 
could  be  supplied  with  food  stuffs.  This  is,  of  course,  extremely 
difficult  for  a  political  party,  even  if  it  has  the  governmental 
power.  Its  character  is  political  and  not  economic;  it  is  not 
able  to  do  it.  The  Food  Stuffs  Commissariat  stood  helpless 
before  the  situation.  It  threw  itself  upon  the  co-operation  of  the 
Consumers'  Societies.  In  Russia,  as  well  as  in  Ukraine,  these 
societies  were  well  developed.  The  government  took  over  these 
societies  and  made  them  as  before  stated,  into  state  organs. 
Membership  became  obligatory  for  the  whole  population.  The 
bourgeoisie,  which  also  nominally  belongs  to  these  societies,  has 
no  rights  inside  them.  The  proletariat  alone  has  any  right  to 
elect  officials.  Nevertheless,  most  of  the  officials  spring  from 
the  bourgeoisie,  because  the  workers  are  uneducated  and  for 
the  largest  part  illiterates. 

Here  we  are  speaking  of  the  workers  and  the  bourgeoisie 
but  not  of  the  peasants.  The  peasants  are  to  a  large  extent 
not  included  in  the  consumers'  societies.  They  do>  not  need  it. 
They  need  not  obtain  any  food  stuffs;  on  the  contrary,  they 
can  spare  them  for  others.  This  is  therefore  intended  merely 
for  the  cities  which  are  dependent  upon  the  country. 

The  consumers'  co-operatives  receive  the  food  stuffs  from 
the  government.  They  distribute  them  among  the  workers  of  the 
cities  and  factories.  The  co-operatives  have  their  branches  in  the 
factories,  and  the  workers  receive  their  bread  in  the  factories. 
But  due  to  the  shortage  of  food  stuffs  the  workers  are  not 
sufficiently  supplied.  The  workers  cannot  possibly  live  on  their 
rations.  They  are  to  receive  1  Ib  bread  daily.  (1  Russian  Ib. 
equal  to  .88  Ib.  American  weight  or  400  gram). 

But  it  happens  often  that  they  get  no  bread  for  days  at 
a  time.  In  a  chocolate  and  confectionery  factory  in  Charkov, 
the  seat  of  the  present  Ukrainian  Soviet  government,  the  work- 
ers, in  September  1920,  received  no  bread  ration  for  4  days  in 
succession.  This  is  state  factory  No.  22,  for  chocolate  and 
confectionery  manufacture. 

As  the  workers  do  not  receive  sufficient  bread  in  the 
factories  through  the  government,  they  are  compelled  to  procure 
their  bread  themselves,  privately.  In  Russia,  bread  is  the 
principal  food  stuff.  Most  people  subsist  almost  exclusively  o<n 
bread  and  Kascha  (a  kind  of  millet  mush).  But  the  workers 
can  not  pay  the  market  price  of  bread.  We  should  remember 
that  the  wages  in  this  chocolate  factory  are  2,400  rubles  per 
month.  But  the  price  of  a  Ib.  of  bread  amounted  at  the  same 
time  (Sept.  12,  1920),  in  the  fish  market  of  Charkov,  to  500 
rubles  for  white  bread  and  340  rubles  for  black  bread.  The 
monthly  wage  will,  consequently,  buy  barely  5  Ibs  white  bread 
and  a  good  7  Ibs.  of  black  bread. 

Irresistibly  the  question  arises;  how  can  the  workers  live 
that  way.  But  it  is  to  be  noted  that  in  many  factories  the 

140 


noonday  meal  is  delivered  to>  the  workers.  This  lunch  is  certainly 
not  very  good,  but  on  the  contrary,  of  a  very  inferior  quality. 
Only  in  one  factory  have  I  found  the  lunch  really  nourishing, 
even  if  simple.  This  was  in  the  4th  government  factory  for  the 
textile  industry.  But  this  is  still  only  in  the  initial  stage.  In 
this  factory  there  are  1,500  workers.  Only  500  can  get  their 
lunch  delivered.  It  still  remains  necessary  to  fix  up  things  for  the 
rest  of  them  also.  But  this  meets  with  great  difficulties.  There 
must  be  space  for  serving  the  meals,  and  there  must  be  food 
stuffs.  For  this  lunch  the  workers  pay  only  20-30  rubles. 

Wtiat  do  those  workers  do  who  get  no  lunch?  They  try  to 
procure  it  themselves.  But  how?  Of  the  1500  workers  em- 
ployed there,  10%  do  not  come  to  work.  They  remain  away 
from  work,  although  heavy  penalties  are  inflicted  for  such 
conduct.  Those  who  remain  away  from  work  three  days  in 
succession,  without  being  sick,  or  without  some  other  urgent 
cause,  are  legally  condemned  to*  a  concentration  camp.  In  practice 
this  is  not  sternly  enforced.  Even  if  the  government  would  like 
to  do  it,  the  workers  do  not  want  it  done.  The  first  court 
passing  sentence  on  workers  for  staying  away  from  work  is 
in  many  places  the  factory  committee.  And  as  these  are  workers 
themselves,  few  of  them  being  communists,  they  are  naturally 
inclined  to  be  lenient  with  their  fellows  and  do  not  sentence 
them.  In  this  factory  of  1,500  workers  there  is  a  relatively 
high  percentage  of  communists,  namely  200,  about  13.3%.  But  in 
a  locomotive  factory  in  the  same  city  there  are  among  3,350 
workers  only  100  communists,  or  2.9%.  It  frequently  happens 
that  the  communists  in  each  factory  form  a  communist  group, 
the  principal  function  of  which  is  spying.  Of  these  some  are  at 
the  same  time  in  the  tscheka  (extra-ordinary  commission  or 
secret  police).  At  the  end  of  August,  1920,  172  workers  were 
arrested  in  the  locomotive  factory  because  they,  under  the 
influence  of  anarchists  and  left  social-revolutionaries,  wanted  to 
organize  the  food  stuffs  distribution  among  themselves  and 
remained  away  from  the  job. 

The  workers  also  stay  away  from  the  job,  in  order  to 
procure,  in  a  different  manner,  the  necessaries  of  life  which  they 
can  not  get  in  the  factory.  Part  of  them  are  only  "semi^proleta- 
rians" ;  part  of  the  workers  are  peasants  who  still  have  a  piece 
of  land  which  they  work  and  which  supports  them  a  little 
bit  better.  Another  part  strolls  out  in  the  country,  in  order  to 
"rustle".  The  workers  organize  themselves  for  this  purpose.  They 
send  some  of  their  number  out  in  the  country  for  provisions. 
These  buy  provisions  for  the  whole  factory  or  for  a  group  of 
20  men,  according  to  how  many  take  part  in  it.  In  all  Ukraine 
and  in  all  Russia  this  kind  of  workers'  co-operatives  at  the 
place  of  work  are  very  common.  This  shows  us  also>  a  new 
form  of  distribution  and  of  supplying  the  factory  workers  with 
food  stuffs  and  which  has  sprung  up  spontaneously  among  the 
workers  as  a  result  of  the  economic  conditions.  The  consumers' 

141 


co-operatives  were  formerly  free,  that  is,  independent  of  the 
state.  They  were  not  then  constructed  in  socialist  fashion,  but 
like  everything  else  in  the  capitalist  system,  in  capitalist  fashion. 
After  they  were  nationalized,  they  were,  of  course,  state  socialistic 
but  had  lost  their  efficiency.  As  organs  of  the  state  they  are 
not  independent  but  tied  up,  dependent  upon  the  state  to  deliver 
the  food  stuffs  to  them.  But  the  state  can  do  this  only  to  such 
a  small  extent  that  these  societies  are  not  able  to  properly  perform 
their  duties.  The  procuring  of  food  stuffs  the  state  could  ac- 
complish only  by  means  of  the  requisition  policy  through  the 
military.  It  could  not  follow  a  different  policy  due  to  the  bad 
economic  situation.  Again  we  are  confronted  with  the  blockade. 
We  are  always  turning  round  in  a  circle  which  we  cannot  get 
out  of  as  long  as  the  blockade  is  not  lifted. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  state  had  not  nationalized  the 
consumers'  co-operatives,  the  independent  consumers'  co-operatives 
would  have  served  the  peasants  better.  But  the  nationalization 
of  the  consumers'  co-operatives  was  a  necessary  result  of  the 
strangling  of  free  trade  among  the  prod^lcers.  The  abolition  of 
the  Russian  markets  of  the  peasants  and  the  workers  proved 
to  be  a  very  disastrous  error  which  revenged  itself  heavily  in 
the  paralyzing  of  the  food  stuff  supply  system,  through  which 
again  industry  and  the  whole  of  production  was  badly  injured. 
After  the  abolition  of  private  property  the  economic  life  should 
have  moved  in  a  socialist  direction  without  further  interference 
by  the  state. 

All  these  phenomena  are  extremely  instructive  and  shoiv  us 
that  it  is  impossible  to  regulate  the  economic  life  of  a  country 
through  political  organizations,  yes,  even  that  the  political  rule 
over  economic  life  must  have  far-reaching  destructive  effects. 
Independent  of  the  state  the  workers  themselves  create  their  own 
economic  organs  for  the  regulation  of  economic  life,  for  their 
own  maintenance  and  for  their  bare  existence.  The  state  could 
not  carry  it  through  with  the  best  will  in  the  world.  It  his  not 
the  intelligence  necessary  for  this  purpose.  It  is  strange  to 
economic  life.  This  duty  devolves  iipon  the  working  people 
themselves*' 

The  supplying  of  the  cities  with  fu&l  and  building  material, 
principally  wood,  the  Soviets  of  the  cities  are  taking  in  hand. 
The  soviet  of  Charkov,  has  for  its  duty  to  supply  the  city  with 
wood  for  the  winter.  The  executive  committee  of  this  soviet 
puts  itself  in  connection  with  the  executive  committees  of  the 
Soviets  of  the  districts.  Each  commune,  each  village  is  ordered 
to  deliver  a  certain  quantity,  according  to  its  size  and  number 
of  inhabitants.  The  Soviets  are  responsible  for  compliance  with 
orders.  In  the  year  of  1920  Ukraine  received  a  total  of  6,000 
saws  and  4,000  axes.  These  were  distributed  to  the  various 
communes,  which  in  their  turn  were  bound  to  deliver  wood. 
But  the  peasants  are  not  very  willing  to  deliver  cut  wood  for 
the  government  because  they  are  not  sufficiently  paid  for  it.  Even 

142 


here  the  military  has  to  interfere  once  in  a  while,  which  again 
creates  bad  blood  among  the  peasants. 

The  Unions  of  Ukraine  are  organized  exactly  as  the  unions 
in  Russia  and  have  the  same  functions,  and  for  that  reason  a 
special  treatment  of  this  subject  at  this  time  is  unnecessary.  In 
Ukraine  there  are  a  total  of  1,173,000  workers  organized  in  the 
unions.  These  numbers  fall  on  13  gouvernements.  Of  these 
280,000  are  railroad  workers,  162,000  are  soviet  employees, 
134,000  mine  workers,  113,000  metal  workers,  72,000  workers 
in  the  food  stuffs  industry,  58,000  in  the  sugar  industry,  58,700 
telegraph  and  postal  employees,  49,660  agricultural  laborers  on 
the  soviet  estates,  42,135  employees  of  the  hospitals  and  asylums, 
38,000  educational  workers  (teachers,  party  agitators,  journal- 
ists), 31,500  clothing  workers,  23,800  chemical  and  glass  work- 
ers, 22,900  leather  workers,  20,600  building  construction  work- 
ers, 18,800  wood  workers,  18,000  tobacco  workers,  13,000  textile 
workers,  11,000  graphical  workers  and  3,000  paper  workers. 

Membership  in  the  unions  is  obligatory  for  the  workers. 
They  elect  factory  councils.  These  factory  councils  elect  a  soviet 
in  their  industry  for  a  whole  gouvernement.  This  gouvernement 
soviet  elects  an  executive  committee  consisting  of  9-14  men. 
In  this  soviet  are  also  the  representatives  of  the  Commissariat 
of  labor  and  of  the  Supreme  Council  of  National  Economy. 
These  commissariats  carry  on  their  activities  through  the  unions. 
Or,  expressing  it  differently,  the  Supreme  Council  of  National 
Economy  organizes  production  through  its  representatives  in 
the  unions,  whose  orders  must  be  carried  out  unconditionally, 
they  decide  what  the  workers  shall  do  and  how  they  shall  work. 
The  Commissariat  of  Labor  controls  the  workers  through  its 
representatives  in  the  unions,  whose  orders  must  also  be  strictly 
carried  out  over  the  workers:  where  and  how  long  they  must 
work.  The  workers  in  their  unions  have  no  influence  ovev 
production,  nor  over  the  conditions  of  work. 

The  executive  committee  o/  the  gouvernement  Soviets  has 
5  departments:  1)  The  economic  department,  2)  Wage  tariffs, 
3)  Education,  4)  Organization  and  Instruction,  5)  General 
Business.  Each  department  has  further  its  sub-departments.  The 
Economic  Department  is  subdivided  into  two  sub-departments: 
1)  For  organization  of  Industry,  2)  For  distribution  of  provisions 
and  working  clothes.  But  the  workers  have  not  the  right  to 
control  the  labors  of  the  departments,  but  only  have  the  right 
to  decide  over  such  work  as  is  assigned  to  them  by  the  department. 

Industry  in  Ukraine  may  be  devided  in  three  parts :  The 
largest  industry,  the  metal  industry,  is  under  the  direct  control 
of  the  Supreme  Council  of  National  Economy  and  the  industries 
of  the  second  and  third  class  stand  under  the  provisional  council 
of  the  Supreme  Council  of  National  Economy.  There  are  in 
Ukraine  42  larger  and  14  smaller  textile  factories.  The  large 
metal  works  of  the  country,  16  in  number,  are  combined  into 
one  great  trust.  The  mines  of  the  Don  basin  are  divided  into  16 

143 


districts,  which  are  subject  to  the  central  executive  committee 
of  the  unions  of  the  whole  of  Ukraine,  subdivided  in  the  manner 
described  above. 

The  working  hours  are  legally  determined  to  8  hours  daily, 
but  during  the  war  there  was  overtime  work  in  all  those  in- 
dustries which  were  connected  with  the  war.  The  renumeration 
for  overtime  consists  principally  of  natural  products.  The  work- 
ers receive  more  bread. 

Bread  and  Freedom!  That  is  what  workers  and  peasants 
all  struggle  for.  In  how  far  they  have  come  into  possession 
of  them  through  the  revolution,  the  investigations  described 
above  will  show.  In  how  far  they  shall  be  able  to  advance  further 
in  that  direction,  the  future  will  show.  But  in  any  case  this 
depends  upon  the  politics  of  the  entente  towards  Russia  and 
Ukraine.  Just  as  Russia  will  be  capable  of  further  development 
generally,  in  the  direction  of  socialism,  if  it  unmolested  and 
unhindered  can  develop  the  powers  that  lie  within  the  people, 
just  so  will  the  workers  and  the  peasants  be  able  to  gain  bread 
and  freedom  in  the  same  measure  as  they  are  left  unmolested 
by  the  governments  and  can  bring  their  inherent  powers  to  free 
development.  Not  the  soviet  government,  but  only  the  peasants 
and  the  workers  can  create  socialism  for  themselves.  This  has 
been  proven  to  us  by  the  development  of  the  Russian  and 
Ukrainian  revolution.  The  bolsheviks  as  state  socialists  have 
showed  to  us  that  they  cannot  bring  socialism  about. 


—  THE  END  — 


144 


GENERAL  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA— BERKELEY 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or  on  the 

date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


2Jun'54lW 


8  1957 


APR  ^ 


REC'D  LD 

APR  21 '64 -9  AM 


REC'D  LD 

our. 


REC'D  LD 

FEB2V65-1PM 


V  J 


^REC 


C'D  LD 

31'65-UPM 


LD  21-100m-l,'54(1887sl6)476 


I  /. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


